Some call Article 1, Section 5, Clause 3 of the Constitution 'The Journal Clause.' The framers did not have a name for it. But, if you follow the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, and later comments by Madison and Hamilton, that these 56 words should properly be called 'The Secrecy Clause.' Unlike what Chuck Schumer and others have said recently, this clause gives Congress an unabridged right to Secrecy. This includes secret voting, secret ballots, closed doors, executive sessions and perhaps most importantly a Committee of the Whole. COW was the main deliberating body in the time of the framers, both before and after the Constitution. COW was a secretive meeting of the whole chamber where votes and debates were secret. No legislation could be passed in COW, but it could be rejected. So COW can be understood as the place where weaponized amendments, special interest legislation and general obnoxious messaging went to die. It provided a calm to the chambers - despite the thorny issues and partisan furies that have boiled since day one. Even Justice Story (1800s) misinterprets this clause in his book covering the Constitution. He calls this clause a 'requirement' for Congress to publish its proceedings, etc. Read Story's summary of this clause. Read others (there are very few folks who discuss it). But most importantly, read the clause for yourself. The logic is clear to many a high school student. Study the history of this clause and the usage of secrecy in the early days of our constitutional republic. The framers voted on all speakers with secret ballot. They wrote the Bill of Rights (and Constitution) in abject secrecy. Hamilton claimed that secrecy diminishes the power of factions (partisan special interests). After all there is no place that lobbyists hate more than being left in the lobby. I think you might agree that The Secrecy Clause needs more attention these days.
@JamesGDAngelo Secrecy allows people to praise Trump in public, and vote against him in private.
@JamesGDAngelo So interesting!
@JamesGDAngelo I like it. I agree that there are many things our elected representatives do that don’t need to be made public. For a variety of reasons. But I think maybe the “secrecy” provision was made more for military and national security purposes than general privacy considerations.
Let's not forget that lobbyists and special interest groups are people. In a perfect works even a corporation is a special interest. One person could never convince Congress to change a regulation that has unintended consequences that was destroying a whole industry,... but if a large number of people in that industry banded together and pooled resources they just might run enough adds to put public pressure on Congress to change that regulation, or overturn a bad SCOTUS decision forcing all states to allow unrestricted abortions on demand. Transparency in voting allows the governed to know if their government is going beyond the covenanted consent in the Bill of Rights. The people should not fear the government... the government should have a healthy fear of the people.
@JamesGDAngelo Thanks, James, for your thoughtful, information-packed posting. I like your tweets & RTs, so I'm following you. I hope you'll follow back so I can amplify your message. Take care. Stay chill. 💙💙💙
@JamesGDAngelo Isn’t there every chance of this backfiring in a GOP-majority House with a largely-unknown EXTREMIST Speaker with few scruples when it comes to attempting to overturn an election, attacking seperation of church and state…