Legitimacy by Association

"Looks like you're running with the cool kids now."
--Meg Harper (Joe Somebody)

Tom DiLorenzo discusses the long train of 'witch doctor' economists that have infiltrated government for generations. What gives these charlatans staying power?

It's primarily about perceived legitimacy that these so-called 'experts' bring to an administration. Fancy degrees and awards bring an air of distinction that wows the masses. By employing the witch doctors, politicians associate themselves with thought leaders. 

Legitimacy by association. And a nice gig for the intellectual class.

Moreover, because those who refuse to think for themselves are prone outsource the brains to others, political partisans can program minds by employing witch doctors ideologically aligned with the partisans' agendas. Blindly following expert advice puts the followers under the thumbs of the politicians.

The antidote to this cronyism? People who think as they seek truth.

Lincoln and Tariffs

It was a shakedown cruise
And now we're sending out the news
There ain't no victory at sea
Unless it's mutiny
--Jay Ferguson

These pages have occasionally considered the myths surrounding Abraham Lincoln, often with the help of Professor Tom DiLorenzo. In this article, DiLorenzo discusses how Lincoln's position on tariffs helped vault him to the presidency.

By the 1850s, the world was largely moving away from mercantilist policy. Protective tariffs were being eliminated across Europe in favor of free trade. By 1857, the 15% average American tariff was the country's lowest import tax rate of the nineteenth century. The subsequent Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether.

Leaders in Northern states, however, were reluctant to surrender wealth gained from decades of cronyism afforded by the American System. They wanted to continue tariff protections as well as government funded 'internal improvement' projects. They also lusted for a central bank controlled by politicians similar to the Bank of England.

Lincoln was the ideal presidential candidate for the going institutionalization of the American System. He was a devout protectionist who, through his railroad industry connections, could wire himself into influential industrialists and media moguls in the North to get out the protectionist vote.

Two days before Lincoln's inauguration, his predecessor James Buchanan signed the Morrill Tariff bill into law which legally raised tariffs on some imports by 100%+ and hastened Southern secession proceedings.  The South, you see, had already borne the brunt of protective tariffs for many years. Being primarily agricultural producers, Southern states had to purchase manufactured goods either from the North (where protectionist tariffs permitted higher prices on domestic goods) or from producers abroad (whose goods were being taxed at exorbitant tariff rates). Consequently, Southern standard of living was being compromised whenever American tariffs were imposed on imported goods.

Lincoln would subsequently sign ten more tariff-increasing bills over the course of his presidency.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated that it was his 'duty' to collect the newly implemented tariffs. He promised that, in one of the more thinly veiled threats uttered in presidential history, there would be no 'invasions' or 'bloodshed' as long as states dutifully collected the requisite tariff fees on imported goods. He subsequently imposed naval blockades on several Southern ports, including Charleston, to ensure tariff collection.

We know how that worked out.

Looking Backward

"The thing is I can't afford to pay the heat and I had to send my kids to live with relatives. They keep cutting shifts down at the dock. You just don't get picked every day. I sold everything I got to anybody who would buy. I went on public assistance at the relief office. They gave me thirteen dollars. I need another eighteen dollars and thirty eight cents so I can pay the heating bill and get the kids back."
--Jim Braddock (Cinderella Man)

Prof DiLorenzo discusses the absurdity of the recently proposed 'Green New Deal' in the context of both an 19th century novel about a socialist utopia and the original New Deal. In 1888 Edward Bellamy wrote Looking Backward, a novel about a character who falls asleep for 113 years and wakes up in the year 2000 to find America turned into a socialist utopia.

Similar to proposals littering the Green New Deal, the utopia guaranteed jobs for everyone, free education, and equal pay for all. All of these programs were funded by the single U.S. employer, the federal government. Everyone retired at the age of 45 with comfortable pensions.

The message, of course, was that the evils of society could be eradicated by the mandates, controls, and regulation of totalitarian government--like the Green New Deal.

Propelled by Marx and Engels work, socialism was in its heyday in the late 1800s. As such, Looking Backward found a receptive audience. Numerous Edward Bellamy societies sprung to life. Socialist communes designed with the book's utopian blueprint were also established. All of them failed, which would serve as forewarning for the string of country-level socialist experiments that would implode in the years ahead.

The Green New Deal is named after the original New Deal, a constellation of government programs promoted by FDR to combat the Great Depression during the 1930s. Leftists still attempt to hawk the story line that the New Deal pulled America out of the Depression. Several popular books, including the work of Shlaes (2007) help put this conjecture to rest. DiLorenzo prefers to cite the academic work of Cole and Ohanian (2002, 2004) who published articles in top economic journals concluding that New Deal programs did not cure the Depression. Instead, these programs extended the economic malaise and made things worse.

The policies of the Green New Deal pack far more destructive power than its original predecessor in a quest to achieve Bellamy's socialist utopia. As all socialist designs do, it presumes that a small group of planners in a room can plan a complex economy better than the millions of individual actors that produce and trade each day. The New Green Deal once again demonstrates socialism's fatal conceit.

References

Cole, H.L. & Ohanian, L.E. (2002). The U.S. and U.K. Great Depressions though the lens of Neoclassical Growth Theory. American Economic Review, 92(2): 28-32.

Cole, H.L. & Ohanian, L.E. (2004). New Deal policies and the persistence of the Great Depression: A general equilibrium analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 112(4): 779-816.

Shlaes, A. (2007). The forgotten man: A new history of the Great Depression. New York: HarperCollins.

Socialist Destructionism

There's a place where the light won't find you
Holding hands while
The walls come tumbling down
When they do, we'll be right behind you
--Tears for Fears

In the first part of this article, Tom DiLorenzo reviews Mises's masterful critique of socialism w.r.t. the objective of destroying existing society. After that has been accomplished, so the socialist mindset goes, then promises of a vague utopian alternative can commence.

But that utopian alternative never materializes. It can't, said Mises, because socialism "does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership of the means of production has created...each step leading toward socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists."

As DiLorenzo observes, this situation has played out over and over again in socialist regimes--from yesterday's Soviet Union to today's Venezuela. The primary mechanism of destruction is capital consumption. "Socialism and destructionism...propose to use up capital so as to achieve present wealth at the expense of the future...The policy of destructionism is the policy of the spendthrift who dissipates his inheritance regardless of the future."

Gaining support for destructionism requires inciting the masses through agitation, begging for votes, stirring up electoral excitement, street riots, and terrorism. Intellectuals and intelligentsia become "recruiting agents for socialism." They must call for the righteous destruction of all cultural values that block progress toward the socialist ideal.

Viewed in the light of destructionism, modern day attacks on Western culture institutions should not be surprising. 

Perfect Competition, Imperfect Theory

Those one track minds
They took you for a working boy
Kiss them goodbye
You shouldn't have to jump for joy
--Tears for Fears

Tom DiLorenzo reviews economist attitude toward antitrust action. It hasn't always been positive. He notes that nineteenth century economists were generally chilly to the idea of regulating business to 'prevent monopoly.' In fact there is little evidence that late 1800s 'robber barons' were actually robbing anyone at all, as quantities were generally increasing while prices were decreasing in nearly all sectors.

He quotes Hayek, who believed that the idea of 'perfect competition' as conceived by the economic profession in the early 20th century, where price equals marginal cost, strips away competitive behavior from industrial activity. Instead, the perfect competition model assumes that government oversight must be present to squash such behavior.

Perfect competition and its regulatory facilitator comprise bad theory that has been a drag on productivity and competitive position of US industry for more than a century.

Racial Justice Indoctrination

"His brain has not only been washed, as they say. It has been dry cleaned."
--Dr Yen Lo (The Manchurian Candidate)

Prof Tom DiLorenzo recounts his experiences while sitting thru 'racial justice' training mandated by his institution. As he notes, the approaches and language employed are reminiscent of communist mind control camps. In fact, efforts to cram drivel such as 'white privilege' and 'social justice' down the throats of feeble-minded individuals are central to cultural Marxism.

The problem facing the cultural Marxists is that all minds aren't feeble. As DiLorenzo notes, reasoning minds readily shoot holes thru the institutional racism narrative that can't be patched.

Fortunately, my institution has not established these indoctrination camps for faculty...yet.

Institutional Masquerade

Col Robert Gould Shaw: What are you doing?
Col James M. Montgomery: Liberating this town in the name of the republic.
--Glory

These pages have included a thread discussing the work of Tom DiLorenzo and his studies of Lincoln and the Civil War. In the context of current Monumental Hysteria, DiLorenzo once again presents compelling evidence of Lincoln's racist tendencies and his motivation for war centered around achieving the American System doctrine by keeping Southern States in the union--particularly as sources of tax revenue and as customer of Northern goods with few realistic options.

That this body of evidence, which has been built by many researchers, is so strongly ignored by the mainstream provides a sense of just how persistent the institutional masquerade has become concerning Lincoln, the Civil War, and, in current context, the South.

What particularly captured my attention this time around was the discussion near the bottom of DeLorenzo's piece about the war crimes committed by Lincoln and his generals. Particularly because this group opened Pandora's box for genocide and crimes against humanity in the next 150 years' worth of war, perhaps their statues and associated insignias, battle flags, war songs, et al. should be designated for destruction by those who believe they occupy the moral high ground as well.

Ignore It

Jake Lo: What judge is going to believe that?
Agent Westey: My judge.
--Rapid Fire

After a district judge in Hawaii once again issued a temporary restraining order on President Donald Trump's revised travel ban, I heard several opinions this week suggesting that Trump should simply ignore the TRO and implement his executive order. If Trump would defy the absurd and ridiculously worded ruling of this judge, then he would be engaging in nullification.

In the context of constitutional law, nullification means ignoring a law or ruling deemed to be unconstitutional. Nullification was frequently employed prior to the Civil War. For example, it was used by states to combat oppressive federal laws such as the Sedition Act of 1798 and the Tariff of Abominations of 1824.

Should Trump choose to ignore the judge's TRO, then his nullification would challenge the legal principle of judicial review. Judicial review is a term concocted by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court and all federal courts to examine statutes and presidential behavior, and to declare them void if found to be inconsistent with the Constitution. Of course, it is debatable whether contemporary judicial review regularly contemplates the constitutionality component.

The concept of judicial review carries some intuitive appeal. Courts should be independent, anti-democratic entities that preserve the constitutional rights of individuals when legislative and executive force intrudes. Viewed in this manner, the Courts are the last line of defense for liberty.

On the other hand, notable individuals such as Thomas Jefferson saw judicial review as an intrusion on liberty. In Jefferson's view, the Supreme Court's opinion on constitutionality should carry no greater weight than the legislative or executive branches, and in fact the Constitution does not grant the Court such interpretive authority. Moreover, Jefferson questioned, did it make sense that the people of the United States would fight a bloody revolution only to put the fate of liberty in the hands of nine (five, really) tenured-for-life judges?

Tom DiLorenzo suggests that we have become such a 'lawyereaucracy' today. Find judges friendly to your point of view and have them issue decrees that institutionalize it and put down dissent. DiLorenzo suggests nullification as a way to counter lawyereaucracy.

As an example of a president defying the Court's wishes, DiLorenzo offers Andew Jackson's veto of the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States. While Jackson's veto was in response to a Congressional bill (not a court order), Chief Justice John Marshall had himself vociferously opined that the central bank was constitutional. In his veto response, Jackson (about half way down) argues that it is the duty of Congress and the Executive to decide on the constitutionality of bills that they introduce and approve, and that the opinion of judges on this matter has no more authority over the other branches than the authority that the other branches have over the Court.

Jackson, further channeling his inner Jefferson, also states, "The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears the he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others."

DiLorenzo suggests that if Donald Trump does defy the district judge's TRO then he would be acting in accordance with his presidential role model.

Jacksonian Trump

"And now we are free. I will see you again. But not yet...not yet."
--Juba (Gladiator)

Tom DiLorenzo discusses similarities between Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump. Since his inauguration, Trump has been connecting to Old Hickory. A few days after moving in, Trump hung a portrait of Jackson in the Oval Office. He recently visited Jackson's grave during a swing thru Tennessee. Trump likes to compare the populist movement that supported him to one that supported Jackson and infuriated the entrenched elites of Jackson's day.

Of course, even if they know nothing about Andrew Jackson, Trump's affinity for Old Hickory is enough to cause many NeverTrumpers to dislike Old Hickory.

On the other hand, some people who confess to knowing little about our seventh president might be drawn toward Jackson upon learning that today's statists, including those of the leftist history profession, tend to belittle Jackson.

Stated differently, if he was and still is regarded as an enemy of the State, then it can be surmised that Jackson was probably a pretty good president.

As recounted by Rothbard, Jacksonian populism favored free enterprise. It opposed subsidies and monopoly privileges doled out by government. It supported minimal government at federal and state levels.

Perhaps most importantly, Jacksonians were sworn enemies of central banking. They sought to separate government from the banking system, and to ditch inflationary paper money and fractional reserve banking in favor of gold/silver money and 100 percent reserves.

Jackson vetoed the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States and, in 1833, pulled all federal funds from this precursor to the Federal Reserve--thereby leading to its complete demise.

Not unexpectedly, Jackson's presidential tenure was not without warts. For example, he threatened the use of military force on states such as South Carolina who sought to nullify tariffs viewed as unfairly penalizing Southern trade. Statists, naturally, are prone to consider this as one of Jackson's few positives while in office.

Is Trump another Jackson? DiLorenzo notes some similarities. Trump has called for tax cuts, for firing thousands of government bureaucrats, and for stripping regulations from markets--all of which are consistent with the free enterprise, small government Jacksonian mentality. He has also spoken out against the Federal Reserve at times, although the extent to which he would act against the Fed is certainly questionable. Moreover, Trump seems to attract hatred from the entrenched Washington establishment to an extent similar to Jackson.

On the other hand, Trump is in favor of government sponsored infrastructure spending. Jackson opposed federal spending on such 'internal improvement' projects. Moreover, Jackson actually paid off the national debt--something no president has done since. Trump, with his grandiose spending plans, will likely avoid bringing up this fact when drawing self comparisons to Old Hickory.

DiLorenzo concludes that a good case can be made that Donald Trump is a Jacksonian. I agree that the degree of rancor that Trump has inspired among statists and Washington elites seems on par with Jackson. Trump also enjoys a populist backing that perhaps few presidents since Jackson have had. And, yes, Trump's early actions suggest he wants to shrink government bloat, regulation, and taxes.

However, Trump's stated positions on trade and on government-sponsored infrastructure spending are decidedly anti-Jacksonian. In addition, it will be interesting to see how Trump responds to crises that are certain to arise during his tenure. When the SHTF, Trump's small government Jacksonian side may take a powder.

Donald Trump as a modern day Andrew Jackson? Not yet...

positions in gold, silver

Socialism's One Percent

We thought just for an instant 
We could see the future
We thought for once we knew
What really was important
--Til Tuesday

Tom DiLorenzo's discussion of wealth distribution under socialism (using the current Venezuelan meltdown as a backdrop) reminds us that, under socialism, wealth is far more concentrated at the top than under capitalism. Despite the 'common wisdom' that capitalism is more prone to produce 'haves' and 'have nots,' it is socialism that redistributes most wealth into the hands of the politically connected, while all others wallow in squalor.

Socialism increases the distance between top and bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid. Capitalism shrinks that distance.

Watermelon Socialism

Another promise fallen through
Another season passes by you
--Big Country

In the previously discussed article by Tom DiLorenzo, TD also observes that, after the collapse of socialist states in the 1980s, many socialists took the advice of ecologist and one-time presidential candidate Barry Commoner.

Commoner suggested that socialists no longer advocate central planning in the name of "the people." Few people would likely climb aboard to support a vision that was falling apart in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Instead, he advocated central planning in the name of "saving the planet" from capitalism.

Good idea, said the socialists. We can change our stated means to obtain the same ends. That will get people on board.

And watermelon socialism was born. Green on the outside. Red on the inside.

Paradox of Common Good

In violent times
You shouldn't have to sell your soul
In black and white
They really, really ought to know
--Tears for Fears

Tom DiLorenzo discusses the farce of 'the common good' in lieu of recent dicta from Pope Francis. In the political context, the common good implies unanimity. There is no such thing as unanimity in politics--or in life for that matter where diversity is axiomatic. If everyone agreed on a course of action, then there would be no need for government coercion. There would be no need for government to enforce the common good.

Politics is better viewed as activities seeking to benefit some at the expense of others--of using force rather than personal effort and voluntary cooperation to get what one wants.

DiLorenzo observed that the common good concept can be traced to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose The Social Contract (1762) and other works provided a foundation for the intellectual development of communism. Rousseau argued that the common good was something that only the elite in society could recognize. This special knowledge gave the elite the right to impose their will on all others.

So, the common good is known only to a few. And it requires force in order to implement.

Quite the paradox.

Enriching Labor

Standing in line, marking time
Waiting for the welfare dime
'Cause they can't buy a job
--Bruce Hornsby & The Range

There is only one way to enrich labor peacefully: capitalism. As Tom DiLorenzo explains, capitalism has been responsible for pulling the working class from destitution, for increasing wages as worker productivity grows from investment, for shortening the work week, for the demise of child labor, and for safer workplaces.

However, because individuals generally favor less work than more work, they are tempted to acquire resources through political means (read: aggression) rather than through peaceful cooperation, production, and exchange. For example, labor unions and proponents of minimum wage laws, with the assistance of strong armed government agents, seek to force the wages of those in their interest groups above market rates. Perversely, such interventions reduce reduce the amount of labor demanded to the extent that wage rates are indeed forced above the productive capabilities of workers.

Regulations generally impoverish workers as well. For instance, safety regulations impose unnecessary costs on producers who are well motivated in competitive environments to make workplaces safer to reduce compensating difference and retain talent. As unnecessary costs rise, demand for labor declines and workplaces become more dangerous as less incentive exists for markets to create innovative solutions to workplace hazards.

Indeed, it is straightforward to view such interventions as anti-labor. Remove the aggression and encourage voluntary cooperation, along with the investment that it attracts, and the living standards of workers will flourish.

Lincoln's Italian Prospect

"You're like the thief who isn't the least bit sorry he stole, but is terribly, terribly sorry he's going to jail."
--Rhett Butler (Gone With The Wind)

Tom DiLorenzo discusses Lincoln's attempt to outsource command of the Northern army to an Italian mercenary named Giuseppe Garibaldi. After a string of defeats and firing McClellan, Lincoln offered the command to Garibaldi who had built a reputation for paramilitary forays and terrorism during both an Italian civil war and campaigns in South America.

Garibaldi declined Lincoln's offer. Perhaps he didn't savor the prospects of engaging Lee's army rather than the unarmed civilians that he was used to.

Unable to hire an international mercenary, Lincoln subsequently settled on domestic generals willing to enact the president's version of domestic terrorism.

Memorializing Racists

You're lighting a scene
That's faded to black
I threw it away
'Cause I don't want it back
--Alan Parsons Project

Tom DiLorenzo points out one of the many hypocrisies of Progressives. On one hand, they obsess over a Confederate flag flying above a state house, claiming that it is a symbol of racism that must come down. On the other hand, they ignore the monument in Washington DC dedicated to a president whose public utterances include a collection of perhaps the most blatantly racist comments on presidential record.

Why shouldn't the Lincoln Memorial come down alongside the Confederate flag?

If the response is that Lincoln symbolized other things besides racism, then the argument is similar to many of those with affinity for the Confederate flag.

If the response is that the majority does not see Lincoln primarily as a racist while most view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism, then the question is why should majority opinion overrule the First Amendment?

If the response is that government has no business endorsing opinions, then why is it doing either--i.e., flying flags construed by some as racist or memorializing individuals construed by some as racist?

Institutionalized Lies

"Define irony."
--Garland Greene (Con Air)

Paul Craig Roberts demonstrates the extent to which lies can be institutionalized in history books, movements, and causes by considering the myth of Abraham Lincoln as a civil rights hero.

Drawing from the work of Thomas DiLorenzo, much of which has been discussed on these pages, Roberts presents the case of Lincoln as a racist dictator who issued the Emancipation Proclamation out of desperation to save an empire that was in danger of losing a war. Roberts posits that Lincoln, had he not been assassinated, would likely have championed plans to deport blacks.

Yet, today Lincoln is hailed as a civil rights champion. That Martin Luther King chose the Lincoln Memorial as the site for delivering his "I Have a Dream" speech signifies how far off the rails the Lincoln story has gone.

Shelving history books that perpetuate such departures from the truth in the 'non-fiction' section of libraries cements the irony.

Secessionist Tradition

Lay down the law
Shout out for more
Break out and shout
Day in, day out
--Swing Out Sister

Tom DiLorenzo highlights people and events in the US secessionist tradition developed during the first half of the country's existence. It began with the Declaration of Independence which was itself a declaration of secession from England.

The Declaration's author, Thomas Jefferson, was a vocal proponent of secession. In his inaugural address in 1801, Jefferson spoke, "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

Subsequently, when two New England states threatened secession after the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson wrote to a friend, if there was a "separation," then "God bless them both and keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

The idea was voluntary union and the right to secede.

DiLorenzo quotes various individuals who subsequently reiterated this concept. He also includes a few examples from the long history of newspaper endorsements of the right to secede.

The Lincoln regime sought to rewrite history, declaring that a) the states were never sovereign, b) the union was not voluntary, c) the federal government was justified in waging total war on states that wished to secede from the union.

Despite those efforts, which killed and maimed millions, the natural right to secession remains undisturbed. As Jefferson wrote, this right is inalienable.

Smashing Lincoln Myths

Sgt Major John Rawlins: Not sure I'd be wanting this, colonel.
Colonel Robert Gould Shaw: I know exactly how you feel.
--Glory

Tom DiLorenzo challenges various Lincoln myths, something that we have occasionally done on these pages as well (often with DiLorenzo's help). The myths are put forth in an interview of a 'Lincoln scholar' by a socialist web site.

It should not be surprising that Lincoln's behavior attracts socialists like a magnet. Lincoln embodied the Statist authoritarian figure seen as central to enacting a socialist agenda.

Toward the end of his missive, DiLorenzo connects the dots as to how the 20th century may have been different had Lincoln not 'kept the union together.' American may have remained a constitutional republic rather than becoming a centralized nation state. Capitalism may have prevailed instead of the blend of corporatism and neo-mercantilism that rules the day. Rather than seeking to build a militaristic empire that facilitated world war, the US would have served as a counterexample of peace and freedom to the world.

Many of our problems can be traced back to Lincoln's aggression.

Lincoln's Drones

Dance into the fire
To fatal sounds of broken dreams
--Duran Duran

Tom DiLorenzo suggests that the recent debate over whether government has the authority to assassinate American citizens on US soil was settled years ago by Lincoln.

Because Lincoln never recognized the secession of Southern states, Southern civilians constituted non-combatant citizens of the US. Using the drones of his day, the generals in command of the Union Army, Lincoln presided over the killing of hundreds of thousands of non-combatant US citizens in the South, not to mention the destruction of hundreds of billions (in today's dollars) of property of non-combatants.

These actions violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

After Lincoln's death, many of those same drones went on to murder tens of thousands of Indians during the country's thrust west.

When push comes to shove (or kill), presidents, thru their armed agents, will want to throw off rule of law in favor of rule by gun.

Jefferson and Judicial Review

Cromwell: I have evidence that Sir Thomas, when he was a judge, accepted bribes.
Duke of Norfolk: What? Goddammit, he was the only judge since Cato who didn't accept bribes! When was there last a Chancellor whose possessions after three years in office totalled one hundred pounds and a gold chain?
--A Man for All Seasons

Interesting talk by Tom DiLorenzo on how the Constitution has been dismanteled over the years. I found the real nugget of this discussion at ~21 minutes on the legitimacy of judicial review.

Judicial review is a principle established from the Marbury v. Madison ruling. It states that the Supreme Court has the power to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. This ruling is typically held up among freedom lovers as wholly consistent with natural law.

Apparently, Thomas Jefferson did not see it that way. Citing an 1819 letter, DiLorenzo notes that Jefferson discounted the Supreme Court's claim of judicial review. Jefferson did not view the Supreme Court's opinion of constitutionality as any more legitimate than that of the legislative or executive branch. Or of the people in the states.

Jefferson viewed the Tenth Amendment as the cornerstone of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states that all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are retained by the people and the states. DiLorenzo suggests that the Jeffersonian view was that it was insanity to rest the interpretation of law on the shoulders of 5 lawyers given lifetime high court appointments. Would the colonists fight a bloody revolution only to put the fate of liberty in the hands of five tenured people on the high court? Particularly when it was well known that courts throughout history had proven themselves generally incapable of remaining disinterested judges of the law?

This is an OUTSTANDING observation. I have long considered the framers' 'assumption' that the high court would provide a last and durable line of defense for the Constitution's limited government design as deeply flawed--with benefit of hindsight, of course.

But perhaps this is because that was not the framers' assumption at all. The Constitution itself does not grant the Supremene Court power to interpret constitutionality. The opinion of chief justice John Marshall (who subsequently demonstrated in his rulings to be partial to the Hamiltonian big government view) in Marbury v. Madison did that.

It can certainly be construed from the Constitution as written that all stakeholders had jurisdiction on what constituted constitutionality (!). And if people in various states felt that law was being unjustly interpreted by the federal government, then it was their right to walk away from the union.

Rather than depending on an interested court, which history suggested would be likely at some point, the people would retain the ultimate power themselves.

Yes, indeed.