The context in 1787 was that there needed to be a governing authority that could propogate peaceful commerce between the states and repel force–internal and external. Today “strong central government” has a completely different meaning.

Most of the founders, if not all, believed in a limited central government (I think Hamilton is one exception and maybe a few others) because the concept of “American” as we know it today was not part of who these men were. They were Virginians and Carolinianas and Massachusens and so on–not Americans. To be sure, the Constitution is a litany of things the federal government may not do. None of them wanted a central government that would usurp the authority of the states.

While I agree Washington was a “strong central government” advocate–he himself rode out to western Pennsylvania to meet the Whiskey Rebellion–he was a strict constructionist. Washington said of the Constitution “it is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period” and that “it must mark the line of my officlal conduct.” Jefferson, too – even though he wasn’t at the convention, didn’t sign the Constitiution, and didn’t write in the Federalist Papers–was a stricter constructionist who said “on every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the sprit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Today, we have a Consitution that is Darwinian, changing, not frozen in time one that is creative and continually growing–a concept which must have the Founders turning fits in their graves.

I think this is an important distinction because what we consider today a “strong central government” it is a far cry from the original “strong central government” of federalism that governed this country for the first 150 years. Up until 1900, the states still held the authority in the federalism model. The 17th Amendment in 1913 was the first shift away from the original ‘federalist’ concept. Teddy Roosevelt’s “trust busting” and Wilson’s “new progressivism” claiming an “outdated Constitiution” paved the way for a complete reversal of our federalist model under FDR’s New Deal and “our new constitutional order” in the 1930s. And, today, we have virtually no states rights and no concept of original federalism–the states today are merely vehicles by which the authority of the federal government is channelled.

So, I am curious to know did you blend the two concepts of “strong central government” in your “states rights” segment–the original and the current?

As for seemingly handing over the reins of power to kids to lazy to learn their history, I agree 100 percent. And I think the case can be made that this is not exclusive to one party or the other.

— Patrick Dempsey, Chaska, Minn.

I don’t agree with all of this. I think to call Washington a “strict constructionist” is a bit like call Christ a “Christian”–considering that in both cases the concept was formulated well after each man was dead. And I don’t believe the Founders were trying to freeze time when they wrote the National Convention. But I think Demps has a point about what a “strong national government” means today, versus what it meant in 1787, and that’s food for further study.

Other readers are also invited to share their perspectives, and if you can offer something as thoughtful as Demps’ column–even if as is the case here, I don’t really agree–I’ll seek permission to publish.

Thanks to Demps for taking the time to write and for granting me permission to share his thoughts with Kevblog readers.