[EL] The Federalist Papers and Anonymity
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Fri Jun 1 08:44:19 PDT 2012
Regarding: "The Federalist Papers were written in 1788, well after the
American Revolution victory over King George III’s government." Yes, I knew
that, but I liked the rhetorical flourish!
In any event, my point was that Rick might want them strung up for
speaking out against the Articles of Confederation, since his point is that
anonymous speech is wrong since people don't get to punish them for it.
And I believe that nearly all of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence did indeed suffer severe retaliation for doing so, which seems to
be a result that might please Rick.
Jim Bopp
In a message dated 6/1/2012 10:58:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mmcdon at gmu.edu writes:
The Federalist Papers were written in 1788, well after the American
Revolution victory over King George III’s government. The phrase “sign your John
Hancock” is associated with the non-anonymous speech of signing the
Declaration of Independence, which was more likely to result in retaliation by
King George III.
The Federalists were arguing for a stronger government than what existed
under the failed Articles of Confederation, America’s first constitutional
government, a weak government incapable of performing its necessary
functions. So, the Federalists were in some measure proponents of greater federal
government power, hence their name, Federalists. It was the Anti-Federalists
who were those that were more distrustful of federal power and favored
more power in the hands of the states and the people. Our original
constitution did not have a First Amendment protecting free speech. The Bill of Rights
was adopted in conciliation to the Anti-Federalists. The authors of the
Federalists Papers did not believe that the provisions in what would become
the Bill of Rights were necessary, including the First Amendment Freedom of
Speech.
The authors of the Federalists Papers were not in fear of reprisal for
authoring the essays. The three were well known for their support of the
proposed constitution; Madison was its author. The authors of the Federalist
Papers used anonymity so that Anti-Federalists could not make a connection to
the personal interests of the authors when rebutting the essays. Still, at
the time, many people correctly guessed who the authors were. Ironically,
in light of Jim's impassioned defense of anonymity, we might have had a
federal government with weaker powers if the authors had not written
anonymously under Publius.
There is a cogent argument that one can draw from the Federalist Papers
example about the value of anonymous speech to protect against ad hominem
arguments, but there is no basis to argue that the three authors feared
retribution from King George III.
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon at gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 9:38 AM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/1/12
Things have certainly changed. The First Amendment contemplates that the
citizens are free to participate in their government and that the
government is thereby to be held accountable to the citizens.
Now, it is the government holding the citizens accountable for
participating in their government, as Rick says: "Those with power want to wield it
without being accountable for their actions." He wants speech only if there
are consequences to the speaker. I guess he wants the Founders strung up for
publishing the Federalist and Anti-Federalist anonymously. Well at least
King George III certainly did. And how about Mrs McIntyre, who not even
Justice Stevens wanted to be punished by the school board.
As this debate goes on, at least we now know plainly what the "reformers"
have in mind for those who dare to speak. Nothing about voter information.
No bogus claim that there will be no retaliation. But a celebration of
retaliation. And then what a great democracy we would have!
Only the rich and powerful, whose allies hold the levers of government
power, would dare speak. It would be helpful too if your allies control the
media. Humm, am I describing current America where liberals hold sway? Is
that why some liberals are all fired up to bring it on! Is this their last
desperate attempt to hold power -- threaten punishment of their "enemies"
for daring to speak out?
At least now, all the false facade has been stripped away and the brave
new world they contemplate has been revealed to all.
Actually, it is a brave old world -- see Gangs of New York if you want to
see a window to our future democracy. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 6/1/2012 2:21:47 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
“Citizens: Speech, no consequences”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:20 pm by Rick Hasen
I have just written this oped for Politico. It begins:
You’ve got to feel bad for the rich and powerful in America. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and a variety of big business groups say if Congress goes
back to letting the American people know who is behind campaign attack ads,
businesses will face the “palpable” threat of “retaliation” and “
reprisals.”
Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith warns in The
Wall Street Journal that boycotts based on political beliefs — made possible
by the public disclosure of campaign finance data — “endanger the very
commerce that enriches us all.” Even the chief justice of the United States,
John Roberts, apparently is being “intimidated” (Kathleen Parker), “pressured
” (George Will) and “threatened” (Rick Garnett) by that most powerful
force in America (law professor and New Republic legal editor) Jeffrey Rosen.
On the right these days, the rhetoric is all about a liberal siege.
Despite Republicans’ majority in the House, its filibuster power in the Senate, a
sympathetic Supreme Court and the great power of business groups — the
language of threats is pervasive. But look beyond the rhetoric and you can see
what’s really going on: Those with power want to wield it without being
accountable for their actions.
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court | Comments Off
“FEC Deadlocks on Candidate’s Request To Rule on His Plumbing Company’s
Ads”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:16 pm by Rick Hasen
Bloomberg BNA: “The Federal Election Commission deadlocked late May 30 on
an advisory opinion request asking whether FEC reporting and disclaimer
rules regarding “electioneering communications” apply to ads for a
congressional candidate’s plumbing company….The deadlock over the Mullin AO
indicated that the FEC may have trouble providing guidance to the regulated
political community following the recent court actions that beefed up reporting
requirements for electioneering communications.”
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
“The Corporate Disclosure Ruse”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:14 pm by Rick Hasen
Kimberly Strassel takes on Bruce Free’s Center for Political Accoun
tability. This is apparently the second attack in two days and the fifth in five
months. Sensing a pattern here?
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
Will Tuesday’s Recall Results in Wisconsin Be an “Omen” for President
Obama in November?
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:12 pm by Rick Hasen
NYT explores.
Posted in campaigns, recall elections | Comments Off
“Runoff Draws Big Money and Heated Words”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:08 pm by Rick Hasen
NYT reports on Dewhurst-Cruz in Texas.
Posted in campaign finance, campaigns | Comments Off
“U.S. judge blocks key parts of Fla. law regulating voter registration”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:05 pm by Rick Hasen
WaPo reports. MORE from NYT.
Posted in NVRA (motor voter), The Voting Wars, voter registration |
Comments Off
“DOJ eyes Florida voter roll purge of non-U.S. citizens”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:02 pm by Rick Hasen
Politico reports.
Posted in Department of Justice, voter registration, voting, Voting Rights
Act | Comments Off
“Candidates use lawyers for early battles’
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:00 pm by Rick Hasen
TribLive: “Pennsylvania candidates are increasingly turning to the courts
to settle election disputes — and vanquish opponents. State court
administrators reported on Thursday that Commonwealth Court, which deals with
election disputes involving candidates for a state office or higher, has handled
a record 131 election cases this year.”
Posted in campaigns | Comments Off
“Coalition challenges voter ID amendment”
Posted on May 31, 2012 10:58 pm by Rick Hasen
AP: “Four groups petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday to
remove from the November ballot a proposed constitutional amendment requiring
voters to present photo IDs at the polls, saying the language that voters
will see doesn’t accurately describe the amendment.”
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments
Off
“Holder’s Chutzpah; Voter-ID laws are not about denying access to blacks.”
Posted on May 31, 2012 10:57 pm by Rick Hasen
Thomas Sowell has written this article for National Review Online.
Posted in election administration, fraudulent fraud squad, The Voting
Wars, voter id | Comments Off
WaPo on Edwards
Posted on May 31, 2012 7:45 pm by Rick Hasen
Here.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards | Comments Off
NYT on Edwards Verdict
Posted on May 31, 2012 6:16 pm by Rick Hasen
Here.
MORE: Another High-Profile Failure for a Justice Dept. Watchdog
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards | Comments Off
“Edwards case may have little effect on campaign finance”
Posted on May 31, 2012 6:14 pm by Rick Hasen
The News and Observer reports.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards | Comments Off
“Justice Department Demands Florida Stop Purging Voter Rolls”
Posted on May 31, 2012 6:10 pm by Rick Hasen
TPM: “The Justice Department sent a letter to Florida Secretary of State
Ken Detzner Thursday evening demanding the state cease purging its voting
rolls because the process it is using has not been cleared under the Voting
Rights Act, TPM has learned.”
Posted in Department of Justice, election administration, The Voting Wars,
voting, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off
“Is John Edwards verdict the last straw for campaign finance?”
Posted on May 31, 2012 4:45 pm by Rick Hasen
The CS Monitor reports.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards | Comments Off
Both Sides Seem to Claim Victory in Florida Voter Registration Case
Posted on May 31, 2012 4:40 pm by Rick Hasen
See this AP report. But the fact that the state may appeal is a good sign
that this was more of a win for plaintiffs.
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars | Comments Off
Gerstein on the Edwards Case
Posted on May 31, 2012 4:38 pm by Rick Hasen
Here.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards | Comments Off
WSJ on Edwards Case
Posted on May 31, 2012 4:35 pm by Rick Hasen
Here.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards | Comments Off
“John Edwards’ Might’ve Walked But Trial Still A Warning For Politicians”
Posted on May 31, 2012 4:33 pm by Rick Hasen
NPR reports.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards | Comments Off
“A Cad Gets His Due; The world knows that John Edwards is loathsome. That’
s enough.”
Posted on May 31, 2012 3:34 pm by Rick Hasen
Must-read Emily Bazelon on John Edwards.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards | Comments Off
“‘Bad Kemo’ riles the Sunshine State: Pre-emptive vote tampering
threatens majority rule”
Posted on May 31, 2012 3:17 pm by Rick Hasen
Hugh Carter Donohue has written this oped for the Tallahassee News.
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars | Comments Off
“Buddy Roemer quits 2012 race”
Posted on May 31, 2012 3:16 pm by Rick Hasen
Politico reports.
The underreported story so far of the presidential campaign: (Where) might
Gary Johnson make a difference?
Posted in ballot access, campaigns, third parties | Comments Off
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120601/2366ce25/attachment.html>
View list directory