on the degree to which the Congressncould exceed the President’s spendingnrecommendations, and Cabinet Secretariesnhad seats on the floors of Congress,nto enhance the process of deliberationnbeyond the exchange of formalnmessages, with the intent of increasingneconomy and accountability in. thenpublic business.nSo far as the judiciary was concerned,n.the Confederate Constitutionnreflected the pure JefFersonian principlesnof the early Republic. The right ofnjudicial review was concurrent —nshared by the state and federal courts.nFor the most basic principle was thatnthe people ruled — that governmentnrested upon the consent of the governed,nthe people, and that this did notnmean simply whatever temporary majoritynhappened to get control of thenSupreme Court or Congress or presidency.nIt meant rather the consent ofnthe people acting through all branchesnof their state and federal governments.nAt bottom were, as Jefferson had said,ntwo different ideas of government: annadonal authority with power to coercenobedience to the governing eliten(Hamilton); or a system of dispersednpower that trusted the rule of thenpeople through diverse institutions ofnpower and consent (Jefferson). ThenConfederate ConsHtution representednthe second alternative, and therefore,nthe author writes, “there is much to benlearned from the theories that gave lifenand death to this American constitution.”nDeRosa does not focus simply uponnthe Civil War, but provides deep background.nIn every question he gives usnan original and illuminahng discussionnof basic ideas with the agreements,ndisagreements, and ambiguihes at thentime of the Founding; follows thesenideas through the antebellum conflicts;nand shows how the conflicts issued innparHcular features of the ConfederatenConstitution. This is a work of interestnto all serious students of Americannconstitutional history and political philosophy.nMore impressive even than the contentnof DeRosa’s book is the intellectualntone and approach, the spirit. Henworks in the same spirit as did thenFounding Fathers and the Confederatenframers. He regards the Constitutionnas an object of reverence and rationality.nThis is the true JefFersonian spirit.n36/CHRONICLESnwhich animated Calhoun, who oncenobserved: “Constitutions are humanncontrivances, and what man does andnhis reasons for it, surely ought not to benbeyond his capacity fully to comprehend.”nThis is the proper spirit tonapproach the Constitution, as an instrumentnof self-government to be rationallynpreserved and employed bynfree men.nClyde Wilson is a professor of historynat the University of South Carolinanand editor of The Papers of John C.nCalhoun.nA World Safe fornDemocratistsnby C. Winsor WheelernWho Owns the Children?nby Blair AdamsnWaco, Texas: Truth Forum;n692 pp., $26.95nFrom one point of view, WhonOwns the Children? is a manifestonof educational freedom, an exhaustivelynresearched broadside aimed at thenpseudo-academic pretensions of ournfederal and state governments. Startingnfrom the premise that all instruction isnby its very nature religious, since itnnecessarily springs from certain assumptionsnabout man and the universe,nthe author proceeds painstakinglynto indict the whole concept ofncompulsory education as a frontal attacknon the First Amendment to ournConstitution. Historically, to be sure,nmandatory school attendance has notnbeen seen as such, partly because it wasnpushed into place by Protestants foolishlynsquabbling with Catholics overneducational turf Nevertheless, undernthe influence of the followers of JohnnDewey (who said, “If we have groundnto be religious about anything, we mayntake education [itself] religiously”), thenpublic education system has becomenone of the most militant destroyers ofntraditional faith this country has evernseen.nIt is no accident that the last twentyfivenyears have seen a growing declinenin the intellects of American children.nReplacement of the three R’s withnnntouchy-feely mind games has robbed anwhole generation of both knowledgenand any moral base from which tonapply their tediously acquired ignorance.nSome parents, perceiving thenfoolishness of this course, began tonform private church schools or to educatentheir children at home in the eadyn1970’s. In a number of cases, thesenpeople were hauled into court andncharged with “neglect,” despite thenfact that the removal of their childrennfrom the public sties had demonstrablynimproved the youngsters’ brains andnhearts. Several parents served jail termsnfor this heinous disregard of state authority,nand at least four families werenactually ripped apart by the slaveringnsocial services in their concern for then”best interests of the children.”nHow a system that willfully underminesnand disparages the traditionalnfamily through its poliHcally correctntextbooks can claim to know anythingnof the best interests of children is onenof the more poignant modern mysteries.nBut Blair Adams, not content tonexamine only one facet of this gem ofnhypocrisy, proceeds to put the acid tonmany of its other gleaming surfaces.nAmong these are developments apparentlynunrelated to educahon: compulsorynimmunization, mandatory seatnbelt laws, attempts to prevent or severelynrestrict home births, and the explosivengrowth of a bureaucratic machinerynfor dealing with “child abuse.”nUnderneath the veneer of legislativenrhetoric, however, the common elementnin all these matters is the state’sneffort to assert its authority over, andnindeed even within, the nuclear family.nIn many of our supposedly freenstates, the mere allegation of “childnabuse” is now sufficient completely tonsuspend the constitutional rights of anyn-parent unlucky enough to be soncharged. An anonymous phone call isnoften all it takes to set social services innmotion, and in many scenarios thenaccused is never allowed to face thenaccuser. The state’s inquisition of expertsntakes over, at times extractingn”evidence” from confused children viancruel brainwashing techniques andndragging families through the dungeonsnof a psychological hell, regardlessnwhether they are really guilty, merelynmisunderstood, or entirely innocent.nThe State, with its abstractn