Re: [EL] Anonymity and harassment

One good reason for the partial anonymity seen in the Federalist
Papers is that the Constitutional Convention started with a more
limited charge arising out of the "Annapolis Convention":  to "reduce
interstate conflicts."  Although the states' representatives to the
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were only authorized to
*amend* the Articles, the representatives held secret, closed-door
sessions and wrote an entirely new constitution.

In other words, the authors of the Federalist papers had a motive to
hide because they had exceeded the scope and charge the Convention
had, and very strong arguments were available (and made) that the
Convention was ultra vires and/or illegal in its output, and also that
it was improper in its internal procedure of secret deliberations as
well.   The impropriety of secret deliberations as a general rule is
arguably admitted by the founders themselves, given the openness they
prescribed for Congress in the text of the Constitution itself,
requiring rarely invoked special exceptions for any secrecy at all.

We neither celebrate, nor remember, the dozen or more "Presidents of
the United States in Congress Assembled" who served under the Articles
of Confederation because the secret deliberations and advocacy of the
Federalist papers were a form of revolutionary change.

Thus, it's not surprising that various supporters of the Federalist
papers would wish to be anonymous to the public.

The fact that we may all agree that the end result of that
Constitutional Convention secrecy was good disregards the more
fundamental truth that to endorse secrecy or anonymity as a regular
and general policy for all elections is to endorse the very birthing
grounds of improper conduct and to institutionalize it at the heart of
elections.  Even if secrecy was the right thing for the Convention
under those very special circumstances, does that make it right for
all times, and every election?

The very weak precedent for secrecy is why the Federalist Papers are
cited so frequently on this list.  Today, the Constitution enjoys an
august and conservative (because old) feel to it, but the anonymity
element of the Federalist Papers was the enabler of secret coordinated
efforts for essentially revolutionary change.   We all like that
particular revolutionary change, but who really wants to endorse that
as policy for every election?

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 4/6/11, Scarberry, Mark <Mark.Scarberry@pepperdine.edu> wrote: