Transcripts – Constitutional Council

(Transcript from theTommyCshow, recorded on March 16, 2021).

It is Tuesday, March 16, 2021, and you are tuning in to the Tommy C show. The podcast that’s become a popular resource for patriotic truth and action. The podcast that is always working hard for you.

A couple of things today. First, some improvements. Here in my little makeshift studio, I’ve made some improvements, the sound, the lighting, and there’s more improvements on the way. I’m still fine-tuning things with sound. Much of that, I have to say, in great appreciation and gratitude is made possible by those of you that have supported the show, through direct donations on my website, or through the purchase of merchandise. It has been extremely helpful, and I really appreciate that. Those donations have made it directly possible for me to make improvements to this show, to continue to bring information that’s important and valuable to us. And eventually, I’m going get to a point that I can do this show every day of the week, which is really what my goal is any eventually. Maybe even a live show, that’s down the road a ways because it does require a certain number of subscribers, particularly on YouTube. You need to get to 1000 subscribers before you can live stream that way, but we’re working on it.

But for now, slow but gradual changes. Again, I’m appreciative to all of you who have contributed and been a part of supporting this show from the very beginning. And not just the contributions. Really, it’s the constant listenership, it’s the sharing of the show with others. I understand that many people are not in a position to be able to help out in a way financially. I completely get that. I respect that I understand it, we’re a very tough time and democrats are not making that any easier on us. So, those of you that just take the time to listen every week, it’s amazing what that does, for my morale in doing this and sharing it with others. That’s the great thing, if you if you can do nothing else, if you can share this with others, and subscribe on YouTube, and Apple or any other mediums that you listen or watch. It’s all greatly appreciated.

There are a couple things that I want to talk about today. The first one is short, then I’m going to get into some detail, some historical information. But first, I was watching The Five earlier. I still watch this, I really have a great appreciation for many of the people on that show, but Juan Williams can really go take a leap as far as I’m concerned, and most people are concerned. But he said something on the show tonight that I want to address specifically, because it’s an argument I’ve heard others make when they talk about the border crisis and border securities. Democrats accuse conservatives of being racist for this southern border push. They say, well you don’t complain about the Canadian border.

Well, let me tell you this. Those of us that are concerned about the border are concerned about all borders. Exactly right. Canada included. But we are naturally protected. On the East and West Coasts, by oceans. If someone is going to get in an inflatable paddle raft in Portugal, or North Korea, and paddle themselves across the ocean and enter the country, more power to them. They’ve earned it at that point in time. But as far as the northern and southern borders, there’s a big difference. The northern border is one country. I’m concerned about that border as well, but there is one country up there, Canada, that’s it. There’s nothing else that is connected by landmass other than Alaska, which is one of our own states.

But the southern border to Mexico is, by proxy of Mexico, which is just a siphon for everything else, there are so many countries. There’s seven in Central America. There’s 12 countries and two dependencies in South America, I believe. That is 21, plus Mexico, 22. So you have 22 countries that can infiltrate the United States through the southern border. One in Canada. If you want to make the claim that people can fly into Canada from anywhere and then come across that border, you’re right, you’re not wrong. And they can just as easily fly into one of those other 22 countries to our south and cross that border. The risk, the vulnerability is much greater to our southern border, not to mention that there’s more poverty and more crime that causes some of that influx across the southern border.

It’s not a matter of racism that we want to focus on that border. It’s a matter of reality. It’s a matter of the true nature of the threat. It’s a risk assessment. That’s strictly it. It’s a risk assessment. If you live in Wisconsin, like I do, you’re not formulating a home safety plan for hurricane evacuation. Because it’s not a real threat here. I think the only time there’s been any real remnants of a hurricane to come this far north was back in the 50s with Camille, I think, that made its way up the Mississippi. I digress. It’s a risk assessment. The threat assessment at our southern border is very real with particular variables. And that’s why it’s a bigger concern, and a more immediate concern than the Canadian border, which again, should also be looked at and secured. All borders should be, but I’m just so tired of that lazy racism argument that ignores logical facts.

Now I want to get into the gist of what I want to talk about tonight. The entire country should be very concerned about the cognitive decline and the inability of our current president to lead the country. I could spend the entire show pointing out his gaffes. Or just the fact that he’s mostly absent other than his occasional climb to the surface to run from his own frail shadow. But I think a better way to spend this time today is to examine what our founders envisioned in an executive.

Ironically, it was it was 233 years ago this month that the founders talked about the executive. Specifically, federalist 67 through federalist 77 were penned between March 11 and April 4 of 1788. Alexander Hamilton wrote those pap, which were his vision for the executive branch. So it’s kind of an apropos time to talk about that. There’s a lot in there, it talks about everything regarding the executive – the terms of office, their powers to make treaties and appoint judges, and more. But as it relates to the current composure of our of our president, our current president, I want to talk briefly about some excerpts from one of those papers in specific.

On March 14 1788, Alexander Hamilton penned federalist 70, which further considered the character of the executive along with federalist 69. In federalist 70, Hamilton stated that energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks. It is not less essential to the study administration of laws. It is essential to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition and faction and anarchy. Energy, folks, that’s talking about having a president who is energetic, that shows courage, that shows liveliness and shows strength. We don’t see any of that right now.

The next line that I want to read from federalist 70 is very eerie. Digest this, as you hear Hamilton’s words that discuss the ways in which the Roman Republic felt pertaining to leadership. He said every man, the least conversant in the Roman story, knows how often that Republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of dictator, as well as against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspire to the tyranny and the seditions of whole classes of the community, whose conduct threaten the existence of all government as against the invasions of external enemies who menace the conquest and destruction of Rome. Think about this. Seditions of whole classes of the community who can threaten the existence of all government. Think about our democratic party right now, think about BLM, and Antifa. These different factions, these whole pieces of that class that threaten the existence of all of our government. They come right out and say it, we’ve got members of Congress that want this government torn down and built back up. The squad, you know, members of the squad have said it, other members of Congress have said it, it’s crazy.

The Roman Empire, I wrote a small piece about this last year, it wasn’t one of my articles, it was something I did online, but the Roman Republic, was the closest thing to what we have now. Our founders modeled much of our country based on that Roman Republic model, the good and the bad. They put in the good parts, they saw what worked, they saw what didn’t work, and they were careful to try to create checks against that happening. It’s it’s amazing to me that our very own forefathers could learn from history, that they were, you know, 1,000 years removed from. But we are just a couple of centuries removed from our founders can’t retain this history. It blows my mind. We have all the resources in the world to do it. Our founders went by things that were passed down, and things that were written down on paper. They didn’t have the internet, they didn’t have all these electronic communications, the ease of whatever knowledge they wanted at their fingertips all the time. It’s very frustrating.

Another thing that’s that said in federalist 70, which alludes to strength, or the lack thereof, is that a feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution, and a government ill executed whatever it may be, in theory, must be in practice, a bad government. The ingredients which constitute energy in the executive are first unity. Secondly, duration. Thirdly, an adequate provision for its support. And fourthly, competent powers. The ingredients which constitute safety in the Republic, first dependence on the people, secondly, a due responsibility. Think about those things. Unity, which Biden preaches, and we know isn’t true, but duration and support and competency.

But the big ones, the last two I mentioned, the people and a due responsibility to those people. The Democrats don’t. It’s not seen that way anymore. It’s a privilege. Or they see themselves privileged over the people. As I read these Federalist Papers, I’ve read them so many times, but I read them, and I reread them. When I bring information to the show that I want to share with all of you, I want to relate it to current events, situations that we’re in, so it brings it alive again, because I think that’s very important. I tell you, I read this and I had a migraine today for hours, it’s just started to subside. I wanted to record this a couple of hours ago. I just could not get myself to the sit in the lights and do it. But some of that came from reading this stuff this morning. It gave me a headache to realize how detached we’ve become from the roadmap of how to do it.

Imagine you have a recipe that’s passed on from generations, it’s a family, just treasure. May it’s a chili recipe. And one day, you just decide that, you know, you’re not going to add the kidney beans to it. Another day, you’re going to keep some of the chili powder or garlic out. Eventually, one day, you end up with chicken soup. It’s not even really good chicken soup. You’ve changed everything, it’s not chili at all. Then you’re sitting there and you’re wondering, why does this chili suck so bad? It’s because you ignored the recipe over time, and you continued to take pieces out of it. You felt like maybe I don’t need that. Maybe it’s going to take me too much work to go to the store and pick that up. So we’ll make it without that. Now, you end up with something that’s completely different.

If you’re watching or listening right now, maybe you think, what an asinine analogy. But it’s not. That’s precisely what’s happened with our government. We’ve ignored these important pieces that are written out for us. Now we end up with this decrepit crypt keeper as a president, that’s sitting in a basement somewhere, who does not resemble anything of strength or energy. I

There is more I want to share regarding this, because there’s another part of this that’s equally as profound and disturbing. And it comes from both sides of the argument regarding the executive, both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. First, Federalist 70 went on to say that the unity that they talk about may be destroyed in a couple of ways, either by vesting power into or more magistrates of equal dignity or authority, or by vesting it in one man, in whole or in part to the control and cooperation of others, in the capacity of counselors to him. I want you to think of that right now as the administration, not the man necessarily. What they’re referring to here is a broad group of people acting, you know, in accordance as the executive, not the focal point being the executive themselves. Hamilton said that is the circumstances which may have led to any national miscarriage, or misfortune, or sometimes so complicated, where there are a number of actors who may have had different degrees and kinds of agency involving, we may clearly see upon the whole that there has been mismanagement, yet it may be impractical to pronounce whose account of evil which may have been occurred is truly chargeable to. “I was overruled by my Council, the council we’re so divided and their opinions that it was impossible to obtain obtain any better resolution on the point.”

That gets to a point of when you’re not leading yourself, you’re leading by proxy of your entire administration. There’s going to be fracture, there’s not common unity anymore. At one point, you don’t have that executive standing out front, they’re each going to have different ideas and different goals and motives. Eventually the whole house of cards comes crumbling down, because there’s no cohesion and you settle for the path of least resistance. The least obstructive decisions or the most destructive decisions of that group. It’s frustrating that all of this foresight is there. If you go back and you read about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, it’s so clear what causes the demise of a great country.

Federalist 70 finishes by saying that the multiplication of the executive is rather dangerous than friendly to liberty. That’s what we have going on right now. You have advisors and administrators, and his  VP that are running in different directions with this administration. And he’s absent. It’s frightening, it is so scary.

Those are just a few profound points form the Federalist Papers, there are many more in those 10 papers about the executive, but I felt that these points that I shared with you were most apropos to our most urgent observations of the current administration. It’s so mind blowing and so upsetting to see how far our government has strayed from these founding principles. Likely, much of that is because these things simply are not taught anymore. Unless one electively chooses these courses, or otherwise pursues them at a level of higher education, you don’t learn them anymore. My senior year in school, I was a C student, believe it or not. I didn’t do my homework; it just did board me. So my grades suffered that way when I was in high school. But I had always filled my schedules. In my senior year, I would have had enough credits to graduate early, but we couldn’t leave early or anything like that. Rather than have two or three required classes and then six study halls throughout the day, I took one study hall and I had four or five other history classes that I took as electives. Advanced history, a class on the history of Western civilization, comparative government. I loaded my schedule because that stuff interested me, I enjoyed it. And because I enjoyed it, I did well, and it’s funny because my senior year, my GPA was almost a 4.0 because I nailed those classes.

The only reason I had that education was because it was still taught and offered. I think we’re suffering as a country because I don’t believe that many of these classes are even taught anymore, or there’s not a value placed on them by parents. So, there’s a lot of kids that electively don’t take them instead of a study hall or getting out of school early. We talk about going back to action and things you can do and being engaged with your kids. Those of you with high school students can monitor their schedules more closely as they’re picking classes. Try to encourage them to take something in the in the civics arena. Think about the options that your schools offer. Perhaps that’s another point in engaging your school boards. Find out what elective history courses are part of the curriculum in your local schools, particularly your high school. If there aren’t sufficient history courses available as electives, then that’s something to go to your school board meetings and petition for. Make a suggestion, don’t just get up and say we need more history classes. You cannot just get up and criticize, or get up and make an empty request, it’s going to die right there. But if you can get up in state exactly what detail you want, and why you want it, and what the results of that can mean – a more educated community, the future adults in the community being more educated, more responsible voters, that can be impactful. That’s something you can do right now, as an action, you can find out what elective civics or history courses are being taught, or at least available to be taught in your local high schools. See what they are, and if they don’t meet what you feel should be an expectation, context that’s important and valuable, then there’s something to do with your next school board meeting. Plant that seed, and then go to the next school board meeting to ask for an update on it and keep going and keep bringing it up and keep asking about it. That’s the only way these things change, folks. That’s the only way they change.

Moving on, there was also a counter argument to the idea of executive advisors. It was called a council of executives. In November of 1787, four months earlier than the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, the Massachusetts Centennial published a letter from one of the anti Federalists, titled The Honorable George Mason’s objections to the new constitution. George Mason was a staunch anti Federalists, and he covered a lot of things in that letter. But in part, his letter stated, the President of the United States has no Constitutional Council, a thing unknown in any safe and regular government, he will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites, or you will become a tool to the Senate or Council of State will grow out of the principal officers of the great departments, the worst and most dangerous of all ingredients for such a council in a free country, for they may be induced to join in any dangerous or oppressive measures to shelter themselves and prevent an inquiry into their own misconduct in office.

The anti-Federalists believed a Constitutional Council should have been formed within the executive branch, which was proposed at that time to be six members, two from Eastern, two from the middle, and two from southern states. They wanted those to be appointed by for the states in the House of Representatives, with the same duration and rotation of the office as the Senate. In doing this, the executive would always have had safe and proper information and advice. The anti-Federalist thinking here wasn’t necessarily a cabinet, as we know it now. But it was almost like a mini Senate in a way of just six individuals that held these rotating positions in the executive branch as counsel to the President. Now you say, well, it would be much easier for corruption. Imagine if Biden had these six people in there that were also democrats? Well, it’s no difference than the Senate and the House of Representatives in total control.

The point in this is that they rotate, so you might have people in there that were appointed by a Republican House of Representatives, four or six years ago, that are still in there. It’s a safety valve of sorts, because you’re constantly going to have rotation and churn in there. It’s an interesting idea, really.

The Federalists argued that didn’t need all these administrative aspects of the executive that it would cause for corruption – which we’re seeing right now. The anti Federalists argument was that there should be a council, but it’s very structured in how they wanted to see it. I have to say that, again, here I side with the anti Federalists in this. I think an idea like that has its merits. I don’t know that it’s necessarily something that would be good or bad, but I can see the argument and see that it does guard in some way against an executive going rogue or against that administration going rogue. When you have other members of the executive branch that may not be of the same party, I think that can’t hurt. That’s a check and balance.

Unfortunately, in our political times, you may think  it’s cause for more obstruction or a stalemate. But this Constitutional Council cannot ultimately veto or decide anything. They are there as a counsel. The executive ultimately has the final say in what the executive is going to do. I kind of like the idea, you might have some rotation in there and bipartisan balance.

As citizens, we need to become educated on the arguments of both the Federalists and the anti Federalists. To understand not just what things made it into our Constitution, but as you read these documents in depth, and some of these other letters written by the anti Federalists, understanding what didn’t make it into our Constitution. Some of that stuff is pretty fascinating.

This is the second episode within the last week where I think I’ve talked about something that didn’t make it into the Constitution. And perhaps it should have. We need to understand these things as we pursue a convention of the states, and we begin to talk about that with our state legislatures – what that looks like, and what we want our state legislatures to focus on, in a convention of the states. We talked about term limits, being an obvious one, but we need to consider whether or not it makes sense to reintroduce some of the arguments from 233 years ago, some of the things the anti Federalists argued back then, that now as we look at it might make a lot of sense in guarding against some of the corruption we see. I think it’s important.

That’s why I want to continue to bring shows like this. I do my Sunday funday show, you know, the coffee with Tom, but every other show during the week typically has this substance, where we talk about some of these founding documents in more depth and how they pertain to our world today. And we’re going to continue to do that. This is also a good example of the type of thing you can expect to see in the founders vault, which is the project I’m working on for my website where I take different arguments that were had during our constitutional convention, the debates between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. I begin to break those out and put them in one spot. You’ll have a source on my website where you can look for the debates specific to parts of our government’s founding. You’ll get to read those debates in more of an interactive, real-time way, in hindsight. That is the project I’m working on, called the founders vault. It’s very in depth, very detailed. There’s a lot that has gone into that. I started that a few weeks ago. As I’m into it, that project continues to grow and grow.

Some of it will go live in spring, I had hoped I’d have it all done in spring. But the more I get into it, the more I realize how much there is to it and I don’t want to leave things out that are very important. I’m breaking it into different segments – the Senate, the House of Representatives, the executive, the judiciary. I’m going to start loading pieces of it in there. I’ll go live with it when I have an entire section completed. You’ll be able to go to my website, like the brief example today that I talked about and see the arguments on both sides. I think that’s very helpful for all of us to know and to have at our fingertips.

That’s all I have for today. If you enjoyed the show, I’d be very grateful if you take a minute to share it with your friends and family. If you’re watching me on YouTube, please hit the thumbs up button and subscribe. Likewise, hit that rumble button and subscribe if you’re watching me on rumble. If you’re listening on Apple and would subscribe and leave me a positive review, I would also very much appreciate that. Feel free to follow engage with me on Parler, my handle is at the Tommy C show. Or check out my website the real Tommy for other ways to contact me, to view my original articles, to check out the truth verified store, or to contribute to the show through PayPal, Venmo, or cash app if you appreciate the commentary and find this helpful, and would like me to keep continuing to do this. There are so many great resources on my website, again, the real Tommy

Friends It is time for all of us to passionately take action and we the people have a proud history of doing just that.

(Transcripts from theTommyCshow are produced by a third-party vendor and may be edited by theTommyCshow to correct spelling or grammar. All podcast content is intellectual property of theTommyCshow).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: