Thomas Jefferson the Brilliant- our Bill of Rights

Just finished reading The Young Jefferson by Claude G. Bowers. What struck me was that an enlightened people limits government not trusts it.  Jefferson, when it comes to political ideology defines "enlightened." As a lawyer, what rings the loud gong bell for me is his wisdom in ensuring the "Bill of Rights" which is for practical reasons, the only safeguard we have today against encroachment and police tyranny (namely the 4th amendment). There are several political lessons to be learned in this story. After Independence, and it was his hand that so beautifully coined the magic phrases that defined a movement (his and Tom Paine's Common Sense) Thomas Jefferson found himself in France as our diplomat to our chief ally. His main and constant thorns were trying to calm down the debtors (international as well as French) who were owed money that funded our Revolution because the weak Articles of Confederation rendered our government powerless in levying taxes, responding timely with one voice to treaty and diplomatic issues and handling our own debt (which left our colonies divided on issues against eachother). A new but limp and powerless  country was no answer. James Madison, Jefferson's protégé while Jefferson was in France, ran with the baton of convincing all the colonies to call for a constitutional convention to enact governing statutes that made practical unifying with one effective voice all the colonies. Our great statesmen were so happy to have achieved the goal of replacing the Articles of Confederation with a Constitution that empowered our government that after achieving this goal they quit, indeed they had achieved the removal of embarassments for our overseas diplomats and the world was happy to see a government in place that made the US accountable, responsible and powerful enough to follow through on obligations to others as well as itself. If the story would have stopped here, imagine a behemoth government like the Soviet Union or China where the all powerful government would squash dissent, freedom of speech, dissenters or minority views because this would have been us. When Madison sent Jefferson a copy of the Constitution in France, Jefferson immediately voiced his rejection. An all powerful government with no direct restraints on its encroachments on its people was dangerous. Imagine if all we had was a framework that created a government of checks and balances of an executive, legislative and judicial branch and a nothing more. When we think of the Constitution we think of the Bill of Rights: our freedom of speech, of religion, to gather, our protection against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. We think of the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness without  government interference. But a government of "checks and balances" protects the people you might say- wrong. I spend my career reminding judges (the judicial branch) there is a 4th amendment, that police can't just stop you for no reason and even then so often judges ignore our rights (no secret that in today's MADD DWI hysteria, bad stops are rubberstamped). Without the Bill of Rights, we the people would be at the whim of the controllers. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Here are some of the passages that inspired me. In short , we are to be eternally grateful that Jefferson only acquiesced to the Constitution in approval as long as a Bill of Rights were forthcoming which, despite a seriously hotly contested battle, is exactly what occurred. We the people are in large part free to be happy because of the brilliance of Mr. Thomas Jefferson. God bless  his soul.

To a friend who wrote that the Constitution did not need a Bill of Rights because the Constitution provided for checks and balances between state (subordinate) and the federal government- "a security which exists in no other instance": he replied "The jealousy of the subordinate governments is a precious reliance. But observe that those governments are only agents. They must have principles furnished them whereon to found their opposition. The declaration of rights will be the text by which they will try all the acts of the federal government. In this way it is necessary for the federal government also; as by the same texts they may try the opposition of the subordinate governments."

To an accusation that a Bill of Rights would be inefficient: "..though it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. A brace the more will often keep up the building which would have fallen with that brace the less. There is a remarkable difference in the inconveniences which attend a Declaration of Rights, and those that attend the want of it.  The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp the government in its useful exertions. But the evils of this are short-lived, trivial, and reparable. The inconveniences of a want of Declaration are permanent, afflicting, and irreparable."

Jefferson wrote to Frances Hopkinson (signer of the Declaration of Independence and federal judge in Pa.): "What I disapproved of from the first moment was the want of a Bill of Rights to guard liberty against the legislature as well as the executive branch of the government; that is to say, to secure the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from monopolies, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, freedom from a permanent military, and a trial by jury in all cases determinable b the laws of the land."

Jefferson, know that those of us blessed with the sacred license to practice law to ensure others' right to happiness and protection, will do our best to keep the Bill of Rights alive. I know you would be happy. For only a free people can be happy.

Learning to Lead from the Founding Fathers

What it Truly Takes to Be a Good Leader, Good Lawyer---- My Advice to the Aspiring Young

Without going into details  of names and jurisdictions and suffice it to say that as a longtime member and now a Regent of the NCDD, I am privy to the politics of great leaders across the country… It came to my attention recently that two lawyers I dearly admire (one a lawyer, one a judge) are dealing with what lawyers should never deal with: one a grand jury subpoena, the other a grand jury investigation.  Bottom line, my opinion, both will probably rise above the fray on legal grounds  but regardless, I strongly believe both could have avoided their plights.  The key ? Do your job.  Just  do your job and refrain from negative comments and backlashing.  There is no reason to engage in personal attacks. Although it is very hard sometimes to hold back, calling someone by name “a bully” (whether or not it’s true) or threatening an FBI investigation will sometimes get you just that: bullied into a grand jury investigation to see if something sticks or the FBI investigating YOU whether or not there is anything to investigate. 

I started reading books on Founding Fathers 7 years ago  (http://foundingfathersfervor.blogspot.com/2011/01/mimi-coffeys-reading-list.html ). It all started when I read Joseph Ellis’ Founding Brothers book. In just one book I got a snapshot of the lives and interactions of the greatest men in our country who risked everything and worked together to create the world’s greatest democracy. I was hooked.  My quest for studying Founding Father literature began with that book. I NEEDED more. Not only did my mind go back in history and give me firsthand the reasons why various constitutional provisions  are what they are, I could stand up in court and better argue the law. Brilliant, right ?  So I have kept on nonstop for 7 years always reading in my nonworking spare time a book which I believe helps me understand the spirit of the Founders and this country. This has expanded into Washington’s Generals, the ladies behind those great men, etc. even encompassing   a study of the history of the French Revolution that happened at the same time. What made our leaders smart enough to bypass the masses dying via the guillotine versus the French ?  This endeavor truly made and makes me a better lawyer. What I did not realize at that time or all these years, was that reading these Founding Father books  was the perfect training ground on politics and diplomacy.  Being a criminal defense lawyer, is being a professional beggar (mitigating damages) and diplomat the majority of the time.  Only 20-25% of my cases go to trial, the other 75-80% require skill in negotiation. The Constitutional Convention- one of the greatest lessons in diplomacy that exists in this country for us to directly study (massive details left by works like the Federalist Papers, and biographies into the lives of those Founders). When I sit across a DA who holds the key and upper hand in negotiation most of the time or with a judge who has their own inner agenda,  it is a HUGE responsibility for me to maximize all my diplomacy so that at the end of the day justice happens- my client benefits.  Many a time, I have felt my blood pressure skyrocket and have had to leave to return on another designated day, a day more suitable once proper seeds have been planted and better understanding exists to finish the deal. Reading how Alexander Hamilton, although a prodigious financial genius and industrious government visionary, stifled his rise to the Presidency or had some of his biggest plans go awry because he lacked people skills in negotiating and was eventually killed by his political rival in a dual is great lessonry in diplomacy. Or studying how Andrew Jackson through an innate genius in managing how to appeal to the masses could work magic with his political enemies , or how Thomas Jefferson being the visionary personally picked out and trained two protégés James Madison and James Monroe to continue his Presidential doctrines and agendas as they took office is prime example of how if you want to be great, study the greats. This really applies to all fields but the politics and diplomacy have particular relevance to lawyers.   Many people in their zeal, although their hearts are unquestionably directed towards the benevolence for others, do all society an injustice when they communicate hateful messages for example towards President Barack Obama or Texas Governor Rick Perry. They forget the most important things which is policies don’t define us, working together for everyone’s good does.  No public servant, whether the President, the governor, the judge, or the DA (especially) does it  for the money. No politician, judge or DA takes office instantly knowing all the right things to do. We all learn through trial and error, all jobs have a learning curve and smart people never let that curve stop.  It is unfair to criticize a person maliciously for the decisions they make in their job. I can attest to the fact that some assistant DAs that I initially disdained (not that they would ever know of course), through time and experience have turned out to be some of the best and I their biggest fans. None of us can be effective by being thin skinned. We can’t take disagreements in our job personally against others, this attitude will never help others to see it our way or learn.  To effectively negotiate we must first, no matter what, see the value in others despite their positions.

 If my lawyer friends had let their zeal calm down, they might have thought twice before making statements that had no productive use other than to pin others down in a corner for which no one benefits.  I’m hoping everyone involved in that, takes a few to deeply think about what is relevant and moves on productively.   I respectfully disagree with President Obama’s statement that law schools should be two years versus three.  Not only do we need internships (like doctors after schooling for real life training), we need to add diplomacy classes and training. The best lawyers are the best diplomats. The most effective judges, DAs and defense lawyers are those who know how to get along with everyone. Only when there is mutual respect can there by possible change. For those public servants who don’t belong in office, what goes around comes around. Life has a funny way of shaking things out---- many times the right way. So young people aspiring to be lawyers, watch your FB posts, Twitter posts, and Instagram shots- be diplomatic. Don’t let disagreements be a reason for hatred and unwanted posts that no one desires to see.  Be mature and  although you can’t see the big picture yet, know that there is one. For example, the greatest politicians have capacity to bounce back and do- look at first Supreme Court Justice John Jay: after the Paris Peace Treaty his effigy was being burned in the streets (he feared for his life) only to later be elected Governor of New York.  So key words: DIPLOMACY, DIPLOMACY, DIPLOMACY. As for me, I will keep taking a breather every time someone sends me a disrespectful political email or I pass an uncouth bumper sticker- because even for them, there is always hope. 

More Proof Aaron Burr Was Framed

Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Proof positive. He didn't get the money he bargained for, nor the promotion he was seeking in the British army. He died in England a sad and lonely man. No one disputes this.  But Aaron Burr ?  Absolutely not a traitor. He is an American Hero. So why the cloud?  He was found NOT GUILTY of treason. Why relevant ?  The truth has a funny way of rising to the surface, even hundreds of years later. It is time we teach our children in their history class and set the record straight.

I first became interested in Aaron Burr when on my quest of reading books on Founding Fathers, I read his biography by Nancy Isenberg. I was awestruck.  Here was a badass lawyer, a classy guy by all definitions, well read and philosophical. He was a brave and daring military officer (saving Alexander Hamilton ironically enough when his brigade was destined for capture and the other officers abandoned it as a lost cause). He was a hard worker, extremely prodigious whether it was sleeping in the same clothes half awake for weeks at a time at White Plains (to prevent capture) or organizing a grassroots political campaign that shockingly changed New York Federalist votes to Republican (thereby electing Thomas Jefferson over John Adams).  He was good hearted- in his later years funding the education of young poor women.  Most of all, I liked his character.  While Thomas Jefferson was paying yellow journalists to smear his political enemies and Alexander Hamilton under pen names doing the same, Burr never responded to false accusations in such a manner (& when he did, he meant business- the Hamilton duel). He thought it beneath his character. He made a lifelong practice of refraining from political mudslinging and backbiting. We now know for a fact through a comprehensive study of the Founders through their personal letters and writings of the unsavory parts of politics- jealousy, mistrust and insecurities that are well known facts of the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Aaron Burr was so full of integrity he even bowed out of the Presidency of 1800 (even though he had the votes in the contested elections of 1800 had he simply made a few moves that were encouraged among the voting delegates) because he  had already professed commitment to getting Jefferson elected. He was a man of his word. Everyone knew it.  That is why  his treason charge went nowhere. This false charge was the mastermind child of Jefferson dreamt up after years of petty jealousy he could no longer stand. Jefferson  used James Wilkinson a military leader appointed Governor of New Orleans to hype up the charges. It has since come to light that James Wilkinson, whose painting still adorns a historical New Orleans museum, was a paid spy of the Spanish government (see Wikipedia). I recently came across fresh proof of Wilkinson's duplicity while reading Washington's Generals (edited by George Billias and published in 1964).  It appears that Wilkinson also made false allegations of the beloved Washington General "Mad" Anthony Wayne. To quote a passage from the book "Wayne's popularity was so great that he was able to dismiss such carping (by Wilkinson) as 'the idle Phantom of a disturbed imagination.' Indeed, in view of Wilkinson's subsequent duplicity in selling out to the Spanish for gold, his description of Wayne might easily have been applied to himself."   So, there you go. Jefferson's charge of Burr's treason folded like a house of cards. Lies are like sand castles, they cannot withstand the waves of truth.  More proof.

Why relevant ? I think Aaron Burr is a good example of where good character will get you. We all face moments of challenge. Some of us even false allegations (ask any President or Hollywood celebrity, power attracts attacks bar none). For me , not only do I make a living of fighting false accusations (citizens accused of DWI, not all of which are guilty) but like Burr- because I am good at what I do I sometimes face false accusations by DAs who twist the truth as well as mischaracterize happenings in court when things don't go their way.  How do I handle it ? Much like Burr- my character is of such that I don't find it worth my time or integrity to address base allegations.  My work and character speak for themselves. Much like Wilkinson, those who make false accusations normally don't just accuse one. In the end, much like Wilkinson the proof of their bad character will one day come to light.  Power attracts the worst of characters.  May we all follow Burr's example and let good character and good works speak for themselves. Have to admit, I think the repopularity of Aaron Burr in the milk commercials is kind of cute ;)