Statehood for Canada: Hardly a Merger

The U.S. Constitution includes an open invitation for the accession of Canada into the U.S. as a state. The invitation was made before Canada spread across from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans. So, were Canadians to seek statehood in the American union of states (i.e., the U.S.A.), they would have a good argument for Canada being split in to a few states rather than just one. This is qualitatively different than a “merger” between the two countries; the latter ideological conjecture is predicated on a category mistake. Such a mistake would say, for example, that Singapore and China are of the same genus politically even though the former is a city-state and the latter is on the (early modern) empire-scale. Just because both Singapore and China have foreign policies and are member-countries of the UN does not mean that a city-state is to be treated more generally as if it were the same as an empire. By “empire,” I am referring to China itself, rather than any territories it might have beyond mainland China. The Qing emperor Kangzi expanded mainland China to include some central Asian kingdoms, thus making China an empire (of kingdom-level/scale subunits). Similarly, the U.S., as well as the E.U., are empire-scale/level polities of (kingdom-level) polities, whereas Canada does not have enough such polities to qualify as being on the empire-scale, for an empire contains many kingdom-level polities.

When the U.S. federal constitution was written, Canada consisted of Lower Canada, which was French-speaking, and Upper Canada, which is present-day Ontario. There were also maritime colonies to the east. It makes sense, as Ontario hardly stretches across the continent to present-day British Columbia, that the American delegates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 would naturally view both Upper and Lower “Canada” together as being equivalent to an American republic being represented at the convention, both in terms of population and extent of territory. However, that Upper and Lower Canada were so culturally different, with different languages being predominant in each, had I been at the convention, I would have urged the other delegates to offer statehood as two states rather than just one. Different states having different languages is of course well-known in the E.U., and even in the U.S., German was just narrowly—by one vote—voted down as the official language of Wisconsin by its legislature. Even today, “brats and beer” have a cultural meaning in Wisconsin (e.g., grilled on the lakeside terrace just outside the Rathskeller bar at the University of Wisconsin) that simply does not exist in Illinois, even just miles from the northern border. Imagine if German were the official language of Wisconsin; the cultural differences between the two American republics would be even greater; but I digress.

When U.S. President Trump broached the idea that Canada could join the U.S. as the 51^st state, some government officials at the state level in the E.U. displayed their abject ignorance of what the U.S. was and is by correcting Trump by insisting that Canada joining the U.S. would actually be a “merger” of two sovereign countries. Actually, each of the states in the U.S., as well as those in the E.U., are semi-sovereign and hold residual sovereignty (whereas the U.S. and E.U. have only delegated, enumerated powers/competencies). Neither Texas nor France is a sovereign country anymore, for both have agreed to delegate some governmental sovereignty to the federal system represented by federal governmental institutions. So the presumptuous, dismissive tone used was actually like primped arrogance on stilts during a flood, and in a Nietzschean sense be viewed as a manifestation of the will to power from resentment rather than as a factual statement.

So, when the prime minister of Canada visited the White House in October 2025, Euronews lied that the “US president even made a joking reference to a ‘merger’ between the two countries.”[1] He would not have used the “merger” to refer to Canada becoming a state. The European journalist was writing as an act of power to reduce the US as if it were equivalent to an E.U. state. Canada is not a united states; neither is Mexico. When an official from the British consulate of Chicago spoke at the University of Wisconsin in the 2000s, before Britain had seceded from being an E.U. state, I asked him about how the possible accession (not merger!) of Turkey would affect the European Union. He replied that it would be like Mexico becoming the 51^st state. He was implicitly rejecting the view that Mexico would merge with the U.S., even though Mexico had incorrectly adopted the nomenclature, “The United States of Mexico.” France or Belgium or Germany could call itself a united states, but those republics are nonetheless states in the E.U., which is equivalent, as an empire-scale union of states, to the U.S.

---

1. Malek Fouda, “Trump Says There Is ‘Natural Conflict’ with Canada as He Hosts PM Mark Carney at the Oval Office,” Euronews.com, October 8, 2025.

On the European Commission Boycotting Hungary’s Presidency of the Council of the E.U.

Whereas just one presidency applies to the U.S. at the federal level, the E.U. has several. There is a president of the European Commission, a president of the European Parliament, a president of the European Council, and a president of the Council of the E.U., the latter being held by a state government on a six-month rotating basis. On July 1, 2024, the E.U. state of Hungary assumed that role. Because that state’s government had recently been found guilty by the E.U.’s top court, the E.C.J., of blocking federal law within the state, the matter of Hungary taking its turn in chairing the Council of the E.U. was controversial at the time. Because Viktor Orbán, governor of Hungary, used the insignia of the presidency of the Council in making unauthorized diplomatic trips to Russia and China on the war in Ukraine, the European Commission, the E.U. government’s executive branch, took the unusual decision to boycott Hungary’s presidency. Shortly thereafter, the E.U.'s parliament followed suit with a resolution condemning Orbán's diplomatic trip to Moscow. I contend that Orbán’s foray into diplomatic relations even as he was taking on a major role at the federal level presents good evidence for why foreign policy should be federalized in the E.U. as it has been in the U.S., and for the same reason.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, delegates felt the need to delegate foreign policy and diplomacy to the proposed federal executive branch out of concern that the states would be used, and torn apart from one another, by foreign states pursuing their interests at America’s expense. It went without saying that a state-level official could not represent the union abroad. Besides not being able to speak for the other states and the union itself, a governor conducting foreign policy both for the union and one’s own state would have to contend with a conflict of interest where the interests of the union diverge from that of the official’s state. All of these problems were obviated by having the states delegate foreign policy to the federal level with the states still retaining residual sovereignty. It bears stating that the thirteen states that exited the British Empire in 1776 were sovereign states until they delegated some of their respective sovereignty to the federal level of the union in 1789.

In 2024, in the midst of Russia’s continued invasion of Ukraine, the federal level of the E.U. was involved in foreign policy, and yet a governor of any state government could also take on a role in foreign policy as that was a shared competency (i.e., both federal and state levels). That the governor of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, used the official logo of the Hungarian presidency of the Council of the E.U. in his “peace mission” to Russia and China days after he had assumed the presidency for Hungary signaled or implied a federal foreign-policy role was troubling enough. That he publicly stated, “China is the only world power that has been clearly committed to peace since the beginning” of the war even though the E.U. had dismissed the “Chinese peace plan” for “making a selective interpretation of international law and blurring the line between the aggressor and the aggressed” was too much for the E.U.’s executive branch.[1] That Orbán met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, a person wanted by the ICC for war crimes against civilians in Ukraine, to “start a dialogue on the shortest road to peace” just days before Russia bombed a children’s hospital in Kyiv was also not missed by the Commission.[2]

As a result, the European Commission decided to boycott Hungary’s six-month presidency of the E.U. Council. In addition to going to Moscow and Beijing on peace missions, that Orbán had stated that he would use Hungary’s chairing of the Council to sideline the accession talks so to postpone statehood for Ukraine was likely another factor in the boycott. “In light of recent developments marking the start of the Hungarian Presidency, the President (Ursula von der Leyen) has decided that the European Commission will be represented at senior civil servant level only during informal meetings of the Council,” according to a spokesperson for the Commission.[3] The College visit to the Presidency also would not take place. 

Days after the Commission's boycott, the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning Orbán's diplomatic visit to Moscow. The resolution itself "stresses that during this visit, he did not represent the E.U., and considers the visit to be a blatant violation of the E.U.'s treaties and common foreign policy, including the principle of sincere cooperation; [and] underlines that the Hungarian Prime Minister cannot claim to represent the E.U. when violating common E.U. [foreign policy] positions."[4] That the governor of a state violated federal foreign policy in going abroad while president of a federal institution and two other federal institutions officially objected points to the serious need for E.U. reform concerning foreign policy in terms of the federal system. In other words, the federal system itself contained a fundamental problem in need of a solution.  

Essentially, Orbán was leveraging his temporary presidency of a federal governmental institution of the E.U. to conduct foreign policy at odds with the federal foreign policy against Russia and China. Even if he had been only been conducting bilateral diplomatic relations between his state and Russia and China, that his state government’s position would have conflicted with the E.U.’s position is problematic, for the belligerent foreign powers could have used Orbán’s state of Hungary to drive a wedge into the E.U. and thus weaken not only the defense of Ukraine, but also the E.U. itself as a federal union. Even just in terms of the union’s executive branch boycotting the presidency of the legislative Council of the E.U., the E.U. itself was weakened rather than unified at the federal level.

Most fundamentally, the state governments still had too much power relative to that of the union itself. Also, trying to conduct foreign policy at both the state and federal levels is just asking for trouble because they can work at cross-purposes and even confuse government officials of other countries. Russian officials, for instance, may not have known how much credence to give to Orban versus the condemnations by the Commission and the Parliament. 

Even by 2024, European integration had been tangibly realized in a federal union of states to the extent that one voice was needed on foreign policy, lest the E.U. compromise itself from within. Even though the economic domain had been the backbone of the E.U. coming out of the EC, it bears remembering that the European Coal and Steel Cooperative came out of the post-WWII need to keep an eye on Germany lest it remilitarize. A foreign-policy rationale is thus also baked into the E.U. as per at least one of the international European organizations that pre-existed the European Union. Put another way, the E.U. cannot be traced back only to the European Economic Community. Besides providing for smooth interstate commerce in a single market, peace in Europe is also a salient mission for the European Union, and in this regard being able to speak with one voice rather than divergent state and federal voices would be of great value were it operationalized rather than compromised.

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “European Commission Boycotts Hungarian Presidency over Orbán’s Trips to Moscow and Beijing,” Euronews, July 15, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

4. P10_TA (2024)0003, “The Need for the E.U.’s Continuous Support for Ukraine,” 17 July 2024.

We the People: Invigorating Popular Sovereignty by Referendi

A republic is characterized by the citizenry electing representatives, who in turn legislate (i.e., make law). As an alternative, the citizenry itself could vote directly on legislative proposals. The latter is called direct democracy. Ancient Athens, for example, practiced it. In the United States, the republic form is the prevalent form of government.  In spite of Wilson’s comment made in the constitutional convention that representation “is made necessary only because it is impossible for the people to act collectively,”[1] direct democracy has typically limited to an occasional “referendum” question even though more vital questions could be put to the body politic directly. 

Typically, referendums have tended to do with elections (and thus with representative rather than direct democracy) or with general taxing or spending limits for a government. The rationale for putting general taxing or spending limits up for referendum is that they apply to a government as a whole—this perspective being from that of popular sovereignty (i.e., the citizenry, whose electoral power transcends their government). Rarely, an “issue” is put up to be decided directly by the voters. By 2024, several of the member-states in the U.S. had had referendi on legalizing marijuana. I contend that many more matters of policy could be decided directly by the voters. 

Since the elected representatives represent the citizenry, the former should not be presumed as having the definitive right of such decision. Deciding on matters of general policy are primarily value-judgements, rather than requiring expertise.  Issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the Bush tax cuts, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could—and I would argue should—be decided by the voters directly. Beyond issues, the voters could decide more general governance questions, such as whether federalism should be continued. Such a question could lead to more specific proposals at the next election. 

For example, if the majority of American voters want the US to be of federalism, representatives could work on not only constitutional amendments, but also proposals for the voters on which broad areas of power would be transferred back to the states (or the voters could be asked—assuming a majority still want federalism—whether X or Y areas of power should be transferred back to the States). Should elected representatives counter that we should not trust the people to make such decisions, I would argue that it is nonsensical for an agent to contend that his principal is somehow inferior to himself. In a representative democracy, the representatives are the agents of the people; it is not the other way around.

In short, I contend that popular sovereignty ought to be strengthened rather than vitiated. Elected representatives are best suited to working out the technical details rather than deciding broad questions of policy.  An election campaign is a bricollage of factors; it is rare for a victor to be able to claim a mandate on a particular issue. In fact, a representative may be elected for reasons having nothing to do with his or her positions on “the issues.” 

The midterm election of 2010, for example, could have been informed by a mix of factors; it was not even clear whether people voting Republican, for example, were saying yes to that party’s platform or no to the previous two years of legislation (which was informed by both Democratic and Republican law-makers—neither party being able to enact its platform as given).  Even voters blaming the Democratic Party for the resulting legislation is not strictly speaking accurate, as compromises had to be made with Republicans.  So an election of representatives is a broad brush that cannot be divined as a mandate on particular issues.  

Regarding particular policies—even foreign policy, such as whether the US Government should continue to support Israel—the only way to know if there is a mandate is to put the matters up for decision by the voters. Political parties could have a say on how the questions are worded so they are objective (or two versions could be provided). Courts would still be able to declare the resulting law unconstitutional, but even here constitutional amendment is possible.  Even in terms of amendments, the voters, rather than their constitutional delegates or state or federal representatives, could decide directly.  

For example, the voters could decide whether US Senators should continue to be elected, or whether they should be appointed by the state governments or be the governors themselves (the US Senate being like the European Council of the E.U.). The voters could also decide whether abortion should be decided by the state or U.S. courts, or directly by the voters—by state or US—as an amendment.

At the very least, basic decisions would be made that have been mired in disputes between governmental institutions and/or government officials. We are depending much too much on elected and appointed government officials to “make” policy. Ultimately, the will of the people should be freed up and exercised beyond the confines of simply electing representatives—being subject only to the judiciary protecting individual rights (which can be overruled by constitutional amendment, which can be of the people).  Sadly, those in power—the elected representatives—will naturally and ironically resist efforts to expand the will of the people. 

Because the election of a representative involves many elements, an elected representative could easily get around interpreting his or her victory as a mandate to expand the will of the people.  This is precisely part of the problem, and it maintains the monopoly of power that our elected representatives enjoy.  I suspect this is no accident. Hence I am not optimistic on any expansion of popular sovereignty any time soon.  Even so, I hope my thoughts here are thought-provoking. 

Although not the best person to quote, Richard Nixon pointed in one of his books to the need for political development: “In terms of material progress, the twentieth century has been the best in history, but in terms of political progress the record has been disappointing.”[2]  

What I am suggesting is that our political system is so antiquated that were it to develop as technology has, our use of elections could make quite a leap forward.  In spite of all the technological change, we tend to hold very rigidly to the way things have “always been done” in politics.  It is time for politics to catch up. In fact, the technological progress could facilitate the expansion of popular sovereignty.  For example, voters could surf the internet for information before voting on general policy areas. The challenge may well be in how to enable illiterate voters to be able to take part.  As one possibility, voters could vote at desks (as in a classroom) while a reader reads through the questions on the ballot. My point is that we can begin to think outside the box and shake loose our assumptions.

1. James Madison, Notes in the Federal Convention of 1787. New York: Norton, 1987, p. 74.
2. Richard Nixon, 1999 Victory Without War, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988, p. 16.

The Electoral College: A Check on Excess Democracy

As a delegate in the U.S. constitutional convention, Governeur Morris stated on July 19, 1787 that the proposed National Executive (i.e. the U.S. President) should be “a firm guardian of the people and of the public interest.” (1)  Given this role, Morris maintained that it “cannot be possible that a man shall have sufficiently distinguished himself to merit this high trust without having his character proclaimed by fame throughout the Empire.” (2)   In other words, presiding requires a requisite credibility or stature that may be difficult to find in a territory on the scale of an empire.

The E.U. has obviated this problem by having presidencies of particular E.U. governmental bodies the a state government serving in the E.U. Presidency, a figure-head “office” based on a six-month rotation. The U.S., on the other hand, put all of their eggs in one basket in terms of having one president with substantial power in being commander in chief and having a legislative veto as well as a “bully pulpit.” Considerable emphasis is thus placed on the office’s selection process.

In the constitutional convention, Morris believed that the people at large “would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce [a President] of distinguished Character.” (3) Morris was assuming that at least one candidate can be found whose character has been proclaimed by fame throughout the Empire. Differing from Morris, Gerry argued on July 19 in the convention that the “people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men. He urged the expediency of an appointment of the Executive by Electors to be chosen by the State Executives.” (4)  In other words, suitable candidates could exist, but the people would not be sufficiently aware of their characters to discern the wheat from the chaff.

Electors selected by the governors and presidents of the States would be of lesser number and thus able to come to know the candidates and thus avoid electing a lemon. However, Williamson, also on July 19, “had no great confidence in the Electors to be chosen for the special purpose. . . . They would be liable to undue influence.” (5) Even so, the convention voted that the President would be appointed by electors to be chosen by the State legislatures.

Williamson turned out to be right; the political parties have had tight influence on the States’ electors. The electors would also prove to be excessively subject to the influence of the  citizens who vote for them, rather than being a check on the passions and ignorance of the wider public.  In other words, the selection process has come to enervate an intended check on the democracy of the moment (e.g., the flavor of the month).  Presidential elections have become virtual popularity contests.  The matter of finding someone with sufficient maturity and credibility to preside over the common good has been lost.  Accordingly, the presidents have been highly partisan—even going against their campaign promises for political expediency. My point is that we can look beyond the individual presidents and find that the selection process itself is perhaps biased against producing good governance.

It seems to me that a better alternative would be to have the governors of the States meet together to select the U.S. President. The governors are apt to know the candidates (or can meet them), and could assess them from the standpoint of presiding and executing law. Lest this alternative be thought to slight representative democracy, it could be pointed out that governors are popularly elected and thus accountable to the people.

In actuality, the alternative is both rooted in democracy and capable of providing a check on some of its drawbacks (e.g., popularity contests). Perhaps having the governors select the office would prompt voters to take their governor races more seriously. Additionally, this alternative might provide a needed check on the encroachment of the Federal Government onto the domains of the States (i.e., beyond the enumerated powers in the US Constitution), since the State governments lost their involvement in the U.S. Government in 1913 when U.S. Senators were no longer appointed by the State governments.

In short, the move would strength democracy as well as federalism. This is merely one alternative; doubtless other good ones exist as well.  My main point is that such alternatives should be dug up and debated using the American media and our representatives as conduits. We ignore the bias in the selection process at our own peril. Slighting the problem is itself indicative of the danger in the current process.

1. James Madison, Notes in the Federal Convention of 1787. New York: Norton, 1987, p. 324.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 327.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., pp. 328-29.

On the Virtue of a Constitutional Moment: Reassessing the American System of Government

A constitutional moment engaging the citizenry is urgently needed with respect to the system of government in the United States. In short, the citizenry should decide, as a people, whether to revert back to a federal system or to make the political consolidation that has ensued official. If the latter, Alexander Hamilton's suggestion that the states be districts of the US Government, whose energy he thought could not directly extend to the outer reaches of the empire (i.e., into the wilderness of states distant from the seat of the U.S. Government). This was Hamilton's view in the U.S. Constitutional Convention; his writings eventually published in The Federalist Papers were meant to sell the proposed constitution rather than to give his own proposal. His own view may have come to pass, though through incremental Congressional encroachment on the turf of the governments of the several states and concurring U.S. Supreme Court assuaging (or enabling) doctrines.  I submit that this process of change over many years has eventuated in a gap between the system of governance as it is and as it is to be constitutionally.  Whereas some people argue that we must revert back to the constitution following a "strict" construction, I believe we the people, as a people, should commence a constitutional moment of heightened attention and debate concerning whether we want centralized consolidation (i.e., no states), decentralized consolidation (i.e., states as districts), or federalism (which entails dual sovereignty and a balance of power between the general government and the governments of the states).  I believe the latter is the best suited for an inherently diverse empire-scale political union, but that the people reach a decision is the imporant point now.  For otherwise, we will continue to live a lie--to claim to be a federal system while actually being consolidated: essentially flying with miscalibrated instruments. 

Actually making a decision on the type of political system is better than having the system inadvertantly change as a byproduct of whatever issue is being legislated at the moment. If the latter habit continues, I suspect that the United States will continue along the trend of consolidation at the expense of the State governments, with Congress, the U.S. President, and the U.S. Supreme Court gaining more and more power without sufficient checks on their abuse of power.  Progressives could look back on Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court allowing President George W. Bush to essentially declare war on Iraq and command the forces, while conservatives could look back on "Obamacare" applying to every state. Being concerned about the government of the Union having too much power is or ought to be an American proclivity. So too, the need for a decision on what type of political system the United States should have bears on every citizen, regardless of party.  This is what a constitutional moment is, after all; the people itself rising to discuss the system of government itself without being distracted by partisan issues of the day. To be sure, such a moment requires self-discipline among the people and responsibility in the media, so to keep on topic.

I find myself wondering why I even make the arguments.  It would take so much energy and agreement just to get to a constitutional moment wherein the citizenry as a whole become engaged in revisiting the governance system itself.  We are so easily distracted, and do we, as a citizenry, really care whether our government is federal or consolidated?   It might be that most of the citizenry is ready to say good bye to federalism.  If so, then so be it.  Let’s at least make a decision.  If we as a people are incapable of making such a decision, it might be asked whether we are capable of democracy itself. It would be ironic if we were preaching democracy to the Middle East while not embracing popular sovereignty here at home.

On Educated Representatives and Large Districts: A Critique of Democracy

Democrat Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson said during an Armed Services Committee hearing in late March, 2010 that Guam would be in danger were more US troops sent there. “My fear that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize,” he said in all seriousness. “We don’t anticipate that,” responded Adm. Robert Willard. Did Hank Johnson's constituents want their representative in the U.S. House of Representatives to be at least nominally educated?  Lest one replies with "of course," it could also be that people may want their represenatives to be like them, or at least to reflect what they value. 

It could be that Rep. Johnson's district was inhabited by people who didn't value education. My hometown is such a place. Going to graduate school is tantamount to evading the real world. The implication is that investing in one's education is to waste one's time on something of little value. Of course, you can't fight ignorance or change people's values where they are convinced that they are correct.  It is perhaps not a surprise that representatives could be found in government having that mentality where it is common among constituents.

It is also true that larger the electorate, the less it can make an informed decision regarding the candidates campaigning to represent it. This is why the delegates to the US Constitutional Convention said there is more democracy at the level of state legislatures (e.g., more retail, less wholesale, politics). The EU Parliament has almost 800 reps (newly expanded, though I understand not yet filled), yet is not twice the US population, so the electorates per rep are smaller. However, a governmental body so large is apt to be cumbersome. The state governments in the EU, like those in the US, have smaller districts for their legislative lower houses (and perhaps their senates as well). In smaller districts, the candidates and the elected representative are more apt to be known by a given voter (or by someone the voter knows). Two (or even three) degrees of separation are better than relying on tv commercials, which are geared to presenting a given candidate as he or she wants to be seen. A viable republic ought not rely on a candidate’s preferred self-presentation because judgments in governance involve the actual person–hence the voters ought to know it.

A major implication from my reasoning here is that both American and European state governments ought not allow the balance of power to shift too much to the US and EU level, respectively. On the last day of the U.S. Constitutional Convention, George Washington, who had kept quiet throughout in his role in presiding, asked the delegates if they would make one change. Rather than a U.S. House representative to represent at least 40,000 inhabitants, the minimum should be 30,000 because that would allow for greater democracy. Of course, the setting of a minimum is far different than a maximum; the average district population has never been 30,000.  At the turn of the twenty-first century, it was more than 600,000.  The constitutional delegates would have thought such an arrangement to evince an aristocrisy, there being so few representatives relative to the population. The average citizen's voice would surely be lost, the designers of the U.S. constitution would be wont to say.  I suspect their response would be not just to send more power back to the state governments, but also to urge many of the large and medium states into federal systems themselves. Particularly where a state is heterogeneous, it makes sense for it to have a federal system with states ranging from large metro areas to four or five counties (as in Germany, whose Lander span from Bremen to Bavaria).  Unsere grosse Staaten sollten von Deutschland lernen. It could be that in modernity, the West has grown too accustomed to larger and larger electorates.  Has the E.U., for example, set any limit to its expansion from the vantage point of its democracy deficit?  Furthermore, has the U.S. tackled the problem of how to reconcile the large districts in the U.S. House with the problem of that body itself having too many members?  If it continues to be assumed that Congress can and should legislate on virtually anything, the tradeoff between representation and the size of the House must be addressed.

Federalizing the Criminal Code: Racial Opportunity Costs

On December 13, 2011, a bipartisan group of legal experts told a panel of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives that the federal criminal code had grown so large that U.S. citizens could not possibly keep up with it. “We ought to get rid of the old myth that you’re presumed to know the law,” Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said. About 4,500 criminal statutes exist, according to Ed Meese, a former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan. “This is in addition to over 300,000 other regulations that don’t appear in the federal code but nevertheless carry essentially criminal penalties including prison,” he said. “So the vast array of traps for the unwary that lurks out there in federal criminal law is more extensive than most people realize.” The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts figures some 80,000 defendants are sentenced in federal court each year.
Back in the 1990s, Sandra Day O’Connor, then a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said at a small gathering, “Congress is acting like a state legislature.” She went on to point to all the crimes being federalized. I asked her why the Rehnquist Court had not applied the brakes to this breach of federalism. “Because it takes five,” she replied. In other words, not even the Rehnquist conservative majority, which had been responsible for the Morrison and Lopez rulings, was sufficient to arrest the ongoing political consolidation via the federalizing of criminal law.
In late 2011, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s panel on crime, introduced a bill that would reduce the federal criminal code by a third and define the level of criminal intent that is necessary to break the law. Laying aside the matter of Congress over-criminalizing society at the expense of liberty, and the related matter of the “micro-managing” mentality that is implied in a ceaseless desire to “mold” or control others by threatening penalties, federalism itself ought to be brought to bear on Sensenbrenner’s proposal.
Specifically, in addition to reducing the quantity of federal criminal statutes and regulations to that which the citizenry can reasonably be expected to digest, each statute and regulation should be either retained or thrown out on the basis of whether it falls within one of the enumerated powers of Congress. By “falls within,” I do not mean indirectly or by extension, as in the specious argument that an Iowa farmer’s home-grown wheat used solely by the farmer (and his family) is subject to the reach of the interstate commerce clause because if enough farmers grew wheat for their own consumption, the price of wheat transported between states would be impacted. The term expressly need not be used in the U.S. Constitution for it to be understood that the enumerated powers do not distend through sheer reasoning to preempt those powers reserved to the American republics or their residual powers. Wheat that never leaves Iowa cannot, by definition, be considered to be part of interstate commerce. I suspect that the same logic is being broken in Congressional efforts to federalize criminal law.
The U.S. Constitution clearly states that the police power resides with the states. Considering the abuses associated by state officials in implementing (or abusing) that power (e.g., California police pepper-spraying students to manipulate them off the sidewalk on a public university campus), the U.S. Government could shift from undercutting federalism by “federalizing” criminal law outside the enumerated powers to strengthening federalism by acting on a check against abusive state officials. In other words, federal criminal law could be primarily directed to the states (i.e., their officers), and to citizens secondarily and only within the powers enumerated for Congress. This approach is consistent with the confederal element that is retained in the broader notion of modern federalism (e.g., as applied in the U.S. and E.U.), while acknowledging that the general government also reaches to the citizenry directly (“direct effect”).
One example of the federal government attempting to check a systematic abuse of power by police in a state’s county is the three-year investigation by the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice of the Maricopa County sheriff’s office in Arizona. The ensuing report found “a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos” reaching Sheriff Joe Arpaio himself. Deputies are said to “target Latino drivers on the roadways and detain innocent Latinos in the community in their searches for illegal immigrants,” according to the New York Times. Such practices, according to the report, are in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures. The report adds that Latinos have been systematically mistreated in the county jail. Besides the report, a separate federal grand jury investigation was underway as well, focusing on accusations of abuse of power by the sheriff department’s public corruption squad.
For its part, the Justice Department was urging the sheriff to cooperate with the federal government in turning his department around, or risk a lawsuit and the loss of millions of dollars in federal money. Even so, Arpaio “brushed off the criticism in a news conference as politically motivated,” according to the New York Times. He was particularly upset that the homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, had announced that the federal government would no longer allow the sheriff’s deputies to check the immigration status of inmates in their custody. In reaction, the sheriff remarked, “This is a sad day for America as a whole.”
Besides the inherent impoussance of the Justice Department’s plan “to do cultural change” in a sheriff department that is headed by intransigence, the sheer time during which the alleged abuses had been allowed to continue (e.g., the report taking three years) bespeaks a woefully inadequate priority in the federal government to act as a real check on the states. To be sure, Arizona is a sovereign state with regard to its police power, and the federal government is obliged to respect that sovereignty. However, neither a government of a state nor of the union is free to violate the U.S. Constitution, which is the source of all of the governmental sovereignty that is in the federal system (characterized by dual sovereignty—split between two systems of government, that of the states and that of the union). So Arisona is not free to violate the Fourth Amendment, and the general government can legitimately provide a check, as judged by the judiciary. Therefore, rather than usurping state criminal law by federalizing criminal statues, Congress should go to work to give the federal government better tools with which to act as a check on sheriffs such as Arpaio. Generally speaking, there is more than enough for the Congress to do within its federal role without encroaching on federalism itself paradoxically by “federalizing” powers assigned to the several states. The latter activity involves an opportunity cost that I dare say the Latinos in Maricopa County doubtless do not appreciate.

Sources:

Gary Fields and John Emshwiller, “Criminal Code Is Overgrown, Legal Experts Tell Panel, Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2011. 

Marc Lacey, “U.S. Says Arizona Sheriff Shows Pervasive Bias Against Latinos,” The New York Times, December 16, 2011. 

Morsi as Partisan in Constitution-Building: Lessons from Washington

Appealing for unity after the controversial ratification of a draft constitution in December 2012, President Morsi of Egypt pledged in a televised address to respect the one-third of the electorate that had voted against the proposed constitution. He claimed that “active patriotic opposition” should not annoy the president or the people in a democracy. I contend that the office of president should not be of the sort that would have partisan opposition, ideally at least. That is to say, presiding means safeguarding the process itself, as well as the good of the whole, rather than pushing a partisan agenda. That Morsi was on record in support of the partisan-drafted proposal undercut his role as presider in chief. Given the innate instability of a nascent democracy, the role for a presider “above the fray” was particularly valuable in Egypt at the time. Morsi fell short in this regard, and thus put the fragile democracy at risk.

President Morsi speaking behind the seal of Egypt, suggesting a "good of the whole" orientation.     source: csmonitor

In his address, Morsi said, “We don’t want to go back to the era of the one opinion and fabricated fake majorities.” Such an era is the extreme of a partisan president. The presiding president, in contrast, transcends opinions and even majorities, being oriented to the long-term interest of the republic itself. Literally, to preside means to “stand before,” as exemplified by George Washington’s officiating role at the constitutional convention in the United States in 1787. He resisted the urge to “trade on his stature” to advance one or another proposal until the last day, when he suggested that a U.S. House district of 40,000 rather than 30,000 would be insufficiently representative.  Had Morsi followed Washington’s example as the draft Egyptian constitution was being proposed and ratified, Egypt might have had a more credible person to hold up the fragile democracy so it would take root rather than succumb to partisan strife.

While pursuing a partisan path is undoubtedly tempting for a president, the costs are often ignored or hardly transparent. In Morsi’s case, his invitation for the opposition to join a dialogue was met by Husseain Abdel Ghani’s comment that the invitation was merely Morsi’s “dialogue with himself.” Only by standing above the proposed draft could the president have had enough credibility to effect a reconciliation. It was not enough for him to move to the political center after the ratification had been secured.

Instead of being invested in the draft, Morsi could have focused on “the big picture” in terms of how much consensus is necessary for a constitution to be something more than a partisan-approved document. Put another way, Morsi could have been oriented to the process by which the partisan-dominated draft could have been further modified such that at least part of “the opposition” would have been on board. Unlike a law, a constitution should have more than a majority faction’s stamp on it. Because most of a society should be behind a convention, it should not be dominated either in its formulation or ratification by the majority faction, or else follow-up work is warranted. Here is where a presiding president can come into the picture, being oriented to the society as a whole—to which a constitution rightly corresponds.

In short, Morsi may have approached the draft constitution as though it were a law rather than a constitution. Advancing the document that was dominated by his party in being formulated, he missed the opportunity to seek a wider massaging of the document into a final form. A similar mistake occurred in the American case as the convention there refused to consider proposed amendments from the countries’ ratifying conventions—some of which had sizable anti-federalist representation. Had this minority been assuaged, perhaps the resulting document might have had more safeguards against political consolidation at the expense of the governments of the member states.

Washington, himself a federalist, missed the opportunity to suggest on the last day of the convention that it would be in the long-term interest of the United States for the states to send new delegates to another convention for the purpose of considering amendments proposed by the ratifying conventions because a viable constitution should be something more than reflecting one perspective—as any one perspective contains blind spots. Moreover, incorporating a minority’s concerns could provide a check against the tyranny of the cultural artifacts of the age. A resulting document would be more likely to stand the test of time.

Similarly, by the way, an academic treatise can only be determined to be a classic after the scholar’s age has passed because only then—in another culture, in effect—can the artifacts of the author’s own be fully transparent. Like a good scholar being oriented at least in part to readers not yet born, a presiding president is oriented to a process most likely to render a constitution into a classic. Of course, it would be impossible for such a presider to ever know if he (or she) has been successful. The best such a president can do is to take pains that the process not succumb to expediency. Having such a perspective, such a president should be indifferent toward the various partisan agendas, even that of his (or her) own party. From the standpoint of such a presidential viewpoint, partisan agendas are merely the fleeting vanities of vanities.

Source:

David Kirkpartick, “Morsi Admits ‘Mistakes’ in Drafting Egypt’s Constitution,” The New York Times, December 27, 2012.

The U.S. House of Representatives: An Aristocratic or People’s House?

“Between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House rose by more than 2 ¹/₂ times, according to the analysis of financial disclosures, from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, excluding home ­equity. Over the same period, the wealth of an American family has declined slightly, with the comparable median figure sliding from $20,600 to $20,500, according to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics from the University of Michigan.” This comparison excludes home equity because it was not included in congressional reporting.
These statistics support the view extant in the U.S. Federal Constitutional Convention that relative to all of the representatives in the legislatures of the several states, the “few” in the U.S. House of Representatives gave that body an aristocratic quality. This fear did not necessarily translate into a belief that the federal system itself would be consolidated as a consequence. Even so, aside from the growing economic distance between the U.S. House reps and their constituents, the increasing wealth can be taken as a baleful indication of a funneling of wealth and political power in ever tighter circles. In other words, the statistics support those who urge that more governmental power be shifted from Congress back to the semi- and residual-sovereign state legislatures.
While it is true that the delegates at the federal convention feared excess democracy, which was notably against the interest of creditors such as themselves, in the state legislatures (e.g. Massachusetts), it can be argued that his bias left them (and the constitution they drafted) vulnerable to political (and economic) consolidation, with Congressional power (and wealth) effectively setting its own limits. The statistics may give an unsuspecting public pause in taking seriously the proposition that the federal system should be readjusted so as to achieve better balance, which in turn enables more viable checks on the abuse of power—whether in Washington, D.C. or Topeka.

Source:

Peter Whoriskey, “Growing Wealth Widens Distance Between Lawmakers and Constituents,” The Washington Post, December 26, 2011.

The Veto Power of the U.S. President

On September 12, 1787, in the U.S. Constitutional Convention, Gerry claimed that the "primary object of the revisionary check on the President is not to protect the general interest, but to defend his own department" (Madison, Notes, p. 628). Gerry was stressing the value of maintaining the separation of power that was to exist between the three branches of the U.S. (General, or federal) Government. I believe he was inordinately fixated on his point--missing the presiding function of the U.S. President. Also on September 12, Madison averred that the "object of the revisionary power is twofold. 1. to defend the Executive Rights 2. to prevent popular or factious injustice" (Madison, Notes, p. 629). In addition to be an advocate of the separation of power within the U.S. Government, Madison was concerned that a large faction in the majority might oppress a minority faction and he viewed the expanded republic of the union as a means to minimize such tyranny. He too was slighting the presiding role of the president. 

At the end of the convention, George Washington, who had been presiding over it as one controversial point after another were debated, noted the problems inherent in both presiding and advocating on particular issues. Madison reports that when "the PRESIDENT rose, for the purpose of putting the question [of the Constitution], he [Washington] said that although his situation had hitherto restrained him from offering his sentiments on questions depending in the House, and it might be thought, ought now to impose silence on him, yet he could not forbear expressing his wish that the . . . smallness of the proportion of Representatives [in the U. S. House] had been considered by many members of the Convention an insufficient security for the rights &; interests of the people. . . . he thought this of so much consequence that it would give [him] much satisfaction to see it adopted. No opposition was made . . . it was agreed to unanimously" (Madison, Notes, p. 655). Washington believed that as he was presiding over the Convention it was necessary for him to remain silent on all of the particular points being debated throughout the Convention; even on the last day he hesitated in expressing his desire that there be no less than 30,000 people per House Rep. rather than 40,000 as the Convention had decided. 

The silence of a presider places him or her in good position to weigh in on a point "of so much consequence."  In other words, a presider literally sits before, rather than participates, so as to be able to protect the whole from dangers from points of large consequence.  Weighing in on every partisan point, such as most U.S. Presidents have done, not only keeps them from seeing the forest through the particular trees, but also detracts from their credibility with which they could push through the few matters of such consequence that the system would succumb otherwise. 

It follows that the veto should be used not to give the President a share in every piece of legislation, but to enable him or her to stop bills that would otherwise compromise the system as a whole.  In the U.S. Constitution as it was drafted by the Convention, the U.S. House was the only democratically elected body or branch in the U.S. Government.  Neither the U.S. Senators nor the U.S. President were elected by the people. The Senate represented (and protected) the state governments, and special electors were chosen by the state legislatures to select the U.S. President.  The quality of representative democracy in the U.S. House was therefore vital to the Government having a balance within which democracy was a part. Compromise democracy in the House and the U.S. Government might become an aristocracy or monarchy.  These terms were used by many of the convention's delegates. 

George Washington understood the nature of presiding, which can be gleamed from Madison's report of what the PRESIDENT said on the last day of the convention. It is a pity that his example has been lost on so many U.S. Presidents.

Source: James Madison, Notes in the Federal Convention of 1787 (New York: Norton, 1987).

The U.S. Senate as Protector of the Interests of the Rich

In the U.S. Constitutional Convention, Governeur Morris said on July 2, 1787, that the “Rich will strive to establish their dominion & enslave the rest. They always did. They always will. The proper security [against] them is to form them into a separate interest.” (Madison, p. 233) By this he meant the U.S. Senate. The democratic principle in the U.S. House and the aristocratic spirit in the U.S. Senate “will then controul each other.” (Madison, p. 233) Having the State Legislatures appoint their U.S. Senators—as was the case until 1913—would defeat the independence of the Senate, and hence its function as a check on the excesses of democracy in the U.S. House.  Such excesses had just been evinced in Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts, wherein the legislature there had sided with the former soldiers who had not been paid for their service but were still to make payments on their debts.

In other words, one of the purposes of the U.S. Senate as originally envisioned was to protect property (including creditor interests). The assumption was that the representative democracy of the U.S. House would favor the lower classes.  Although the amounts spent on Senatorial campaigns in after the turn of the twenty-first century practically guarantee that the seats would defend the interests of the rich, that the Senators are elected by citizens rather than appointed by State governments must compromise the U.S. Senate as a check on the democratic excesses in the U.S. House. Even as this check has been enervated, the protection of wealth function endures. 

Indeed, given Shaws’ Rebellion the check on excess democracy is really just the protection of property, which is practially guaranteed anyway by the amounts needed to run for the U.S. Senate.  Not surprisingly, in 2010 the medium wealth of a U.S. Senator was roughly $2.8 million. It is worth quoting from Governeur Morris again—this time from July 19 in Convention. “Wealth tends to corrupt the mind & to nourish its lvoe of power, and to stimulate it to oppression.” (Madison, p. 323)  As the number of electors per member of the U.S. House has increased, even that body could be said to evince a moneyed aristocracy.  The question may thus be raised: Is there a sufficient check against the rich in the national legislature?

Governeur Morris claimed in convention that the U.S. President “should be the guardian of the people, even of the lower classes” on account of the wealth-interest in the U.S. Senate. (Madison, p. 322). However, if the wealth interest has gained a foothold in the U.S. House and even in the presidency itself, that check may well be insufficient and nugatory. A return of domestic functions of government to those of the respective States could perhaps evince a greater weight for what Morris calls “the Mass of the people.” (Madison, p. 323)  At the very least, the lower houses of the State governments are not dominated by the rich. This was precisely what the delegates of the convention wanted to check, and the creation of a general government was their solution. It is no wonder that it has become top-heavy both at the expense of federalism and the poor.

Source:

James Madison, Notes in the Federal Convention of 1787 (New York: Norton, 1987).

When the Cameras Are Off: Who Are the Politicians?

In Game Change, a journalist account of the 2008 U.S. Presidential race, the two political reporters conducted hundreds of interviews and had unusually close access to the campaigns. As a result, the reporters present some pretty interesting political morsels. For example, Hillary Clinton considered Bill’s administration to have been “a tactical and operational disaster” (p. 43). ouch! She would never have said such a thing in front of a microphone. This raises the question: do we, the voters, know candidates as well as we think we do? I contend that we do not, and, moreover, that this partially explains why we are so surprised when our elected representatives behave less than with maturity while in office.

The book’s overall theme calls attention to the magnitude of the difference between the actual candidates of president and vice president and the images of them that they efficaciously portrayed through an unwittingly complying media. In reading about what the candidates are like in person, I was particularly struck by their foul mouths and what their associated judgments intimate about their characters (or lack thereof). That we, the voters, are not privy to the candidates’ real personalities, characters and values is of great importance because we base our decisions at least in part on the fabricated images, or brands. We are situated too far removed from the actual candidates to be able to discover the people behind the curtain.

A candidate’s public image can differ radically from the actual person. When Hillary Clinton was a U.S. senator from New York, she portrayed herself as bipartisan and self-effacing in the Senate when in fact she was anything but—at least according to Game Change. On the evening of her win in New Hampshire, Hillary remarked privately, “I get really tough when people fuck with me” (p. 190). Referring to Barak Obama to her aides after one of the debates, she remarked, “What an asshole” (p. 145). We the People would never guess at such a remark from how chummy she would be with him in serving as his Secretary of State. Images can be deceiving.

As still another example, consider John Edwards, who said to Brumberger, one of his aides: “Why didn’t you come to me like a fucking man and tell me to stop fucking her?” (p. 134). On the republican side, McCain was “still prone to outbursts of profanity,” which have never been caught on tape during an interview (p. 274). On his first visit to his campaign headquarters, for instance, McCain blurted out, “What the fuck are all these people doing here? . . .  I am not fucking authorizing these fucking hires. Who are these fucking Bush people? Where is the fucking money?” (p. 278). In public, the candidate said, “I’m very happy with the campaign” (p. 285). It is no wonder we have so little actual basis on which to know what our representatives will actually do when in office.

Evidently, the candidates hire like-minded staff, which may mean that the political culture in Washington is saturated with a baseness that we, the People, never see. Harold Ickes of Hillary’s campaign, for example, said of Barak Obama after the Rev. Wright fiasco, “This guy has been sitting in the church for twenty fucking years. If you really want to take him down, let’s take him fucking down” (p. 238). This is not quite the separation of Church and state that we are used to. Ickes’ association of church and “fucking” is itself revealing. It is no wonder the real personalities are intentionally masked. How many candidates could win if they were simply themselves?

There are implications for how our system of government is structured and for its electoral processes. Even though we can’t be blamed for the fake images being fed to us if nothing else is available to us, we are to blame for acquiescing in the elongation of the election season—the 2012 presidential campaign “season,” for instance, began shortly after the 2010 midterm election. Such an elongation simply extends the run of the fake images, rather than making it more likely that we might glimpse the real persons behind the curtain. Furthermore, our ancestors are to blame for expanding popular election into larger and larger electoral districts in which there is more distance between the average voter and the candidates. On the number of electors per candidate, the delegates in the Constitutional Convention warned that in very large electoral districts the people would not be able to get to know their candidates. Contrary to American history from the USA-CSA war to today, we could demand more of our intra-state representatives and less of the elected officials in the U.S. Government. Members of Congress and candidates for president are too good at playing the image game . . . too fucking good . . . and the huge districts enable them to get away with it.

Source:

John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime (New York: Harper Collins, 2010).

Pressuring E.U. States: The Debt Crisis as Leverage

By mid 2012, the verdict was in on the German-led recipe for restoring states overwhelmed by public- or private-sector debt: Austerity is counter-productive in reducing government deficits. On June 6, 2012, the media reported: “Prolonged austerity is making it harder, not easier, for governments like Greece to become self-reliant again.”[1] Salaries and pensions in the private and the public sectors in the state had been cut by up to 50 percent, leaving Greece 495 million euros short of its revenue targets in the four months ending the previous April, according to the Greek Finance Ministry.[2] With less cash, consumers had to reduce spending, leading thousands of taxpaying businesses to fail. Income expected from a higher, 23 percent value-added tax required by the bailout agreement fell short by around 800 million euros in the first four months of 2012. That is partly because cash-short businesses that were once law-abiding started hiding money to stay afloat, tax officials said.

The complete essay is at Essays on Two Federal Empires.

1. Liz Alderman, “Greece Warns of Going Broke as Tax Proceeds Dry Up,” The New York Times, June 6, 2012.

2. Ibid.

Leadership in Europe: A Recipe for Reducing Legal Uncertainty

Concerning the legal environment of business, the lawyers who teach as full-time instructors in American business schools affirm that managers would rather have a challenging environment that they know than one that is characterized by headlines such as, “Legal Uncertainty Imperils EU Agreement.” At the E.U.’s parliament, which represents the E.U.’s citizens, the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said in the wake of the agreement, “An intergovernmental treaty was not my first preference, nor that of . . . most of the member states . . . It will not be easy, also legally speaking. I count on everybody to be constructive, bearing in mind what is at stake.”[1] Investors were “largely dismissive” of the Council meeting  at which the extra-E.U. agreement on strengthening the enforcement mechanism of state deficit and debt limits had been reached at the end of the previous week. Alan Brown, chief investment officer at Schroders Investment Management, which had at the time almost $300 billion under management, said of the results of the Council meeting, “Yes, it was what I expected, and yes, I was disappointed.”[2] Schroders was backing up this view with a modest bet against the euro. Relatedly, Barclays was forecasting the currency to fall from $1.30 on December 13, 2011 to $1.25 by June 2012. Besides the pessimism on the “intergovernmental treaty” as well as a possible increase of funds from the $500 billion cap on the agenda at a Council meeting in March 2012, the sheer uncertainty described by Van Rompuy lowers the value of the announced agreement and the outlook concerning the viability of the euro as well as the E.U. itself.

Federalismus in Action: Jose Barosso of the E.U. Commission and Angela Merkel of Germany / NYT

The full essay is at "Essays on the E.U. Political Economy," available at Amazon.

1. Steven Erlanger and Stephen Castle, “Europe United, Minus One: A Firm German Imprint on an E.U. Transformed,” International Herald Tribune, December 10-11, 2011. 

2. Matina Stevis, Frances Robinson, and Marcin Sobczyk, “Legal Uncertainty Imperils EU Agreement,” The Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2011; Tom Lauricella, “Euro at 11-Month Low,” The Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2011.

The Democracy Deficit in Nominating Presidential Candidates

“Newt Gingrich is up, Herman Cain is out, and the attacks are getting sharper as the GOP primary campaign enters the final month.”[1] The final month, that is, before “Iowa launches the contests that will choose the challenger to President Obama.” This has the ring of before time began, or before the beginning. That anything is decided before the beginning may seem metaphysically impossible even if it applies politically. One might demur, claiming that anything without a foundation ought not to be able to exist, let alone to stand. Can Americans borrow anything from the E.U.'s presidents that might improve how the U.S. president is selected?

The full essay is at Essays on Two Federal Empires, which is available at Amazon. 

1. Susan Page, “Gingrich Rises in GOP Field; Cain Out,” USA Today, December 5, 2011.

A Dilemma for the E.U.: A Convention or an Amendment?

In November 2011, European leaders began to talk about amendments to the E.U. that would “change the fundamental structure of the union.”[1] Complicating the talks was ambiguity concerning the nature of the E.U. itself at the time. Foremost among the changes being discussed was the idea of a form of centralized oversight of the budgets of the state governments, with “sanctions for the profligate.”[2] The existing E.U., while more than the American Articles of Confederation, was at the time found to be insufficient in keeping the debt crisis from spreading from state to state and engulfing the union itself and its currency. “The survival of the euro zone is in play,” one senior European official said, “So far it’s been too little, too late.”[3] In this respect, the pressure for “ever closer union” was like that facing the Americans in the mid-1780s. Because the nature of the union was itself an issue, a convention composed of delegates—not state officials—directly elected by the people for the purpose might seem best suited. However, I contend that while rethinking the E.U. was not without merit at the time, the specificity of the planned amendment argues against the idea.

1. Steven Erlanger, "Leaders Struggle for a Deal to Keep Euro Intact," The New York Times, December 4, 2011.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.