The Federalist Papers are widely recognized as an excellent source for studying The Constitution. They provide insights and understanding of issues that arose during the ratification process that was required to make the Constitution the law of the land.
These letters, that appeared in New York newspapers, were instrumental in transforming an unworkable "confederacy of states" into a United States of America. As a result, a constitutional form of government was adopted. More than 220 years later, the Federalist Papers are as relevant today as they ever were.
In Federalist No. 23, Alexander Hamilton speaks of national security. His advice is still valid: "The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the powers to which the care of it is committed."
James Madison said in Federalist No. 41; "The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of the attack."
Clearly, these wise men advocated that a nation should not be hamstrung in efforts to defend the people and the country from attack, no matter what the source or what the potential harm might be.
In his new book, "Decision Points," former President George W. Bush appears to have heeded this advice when he made the decision to use coercive interrogation techniques, or "waterboarding," on "high-value" enemy combatants. For this decision, Bush has taken extensive criticism. No doubt the "Bush-ashers" will see his book as "fresh red meat" and start barking again. But living in the real world dictates that we must not be blinded by ubnrealistic rhetoric, that we must pray to God (or Nature if so inclined) that we never elect a president who would not make the same decision in similar circumstances.
Even President Barack Obama has said that he "will do whatever is necessary to keep the American people safe." No exceptions were given by Obama; clearly "whatever is required" would include coercive interrogation.
Yet, for purely political reasons, the liberal left continues to pretend there is something noble in opposing Bush's actions. We must also remember that promises of President Obama must be seen in light of his track record. As one political sage puts it, in reference to Obama, "watch what he does, not what he says."
The Federalist Papers contain exceptional wisdom for use in interpreting the Constitution. They address diverse subjects, such as separation of powers, checks and balances, representation, and -- as mentioned -- national security. If we compare the needs of a country with that of a single person, along the same scale as Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs," we would find -- not surprisingly -- that some of the most basic needs are security (as is food and shelter); the physical security of the individual; and the national security of a country.
These needs must be met for remaining social needs to have relevance. For instance, what some people feel is a "right" to health care or education is actually "trumped" by the need for security. Our Constitution defines who is responsible for national security, the Federalist Papers help us examine the practical application of our founding documents.
In this critical time of peril, when we face challenges not only to our national security but also to our economic survival, we are wise to make right choices for the country's future. The elections of November 2010 demonstrate that many of the electorate and candidates recognize this crisis and have sent a message to Washington and many state capitols.
John W. Reynolds lives in Pleasant View.
Comments