An anti-government screed posted on our comment boards brought this response from another reader: “Great letter! Posted by someone who understands American values, traditions AND the CONSTITUTION!”
Funny thing though, as carefully as I peruse my copy of the U.S. Constitution, I can’t find that part about being so anti-government. I always thought the Constitution was written to replace the failed Articles of Confederation with a stronger, better government, not get rid of government.
“The legitimate object of government,” Lincoln said, “is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities.”
What those needs might be is certainly debatable, but I see nothing in the Constitution that says the government cannot do for us what we as individuals are incapable of doing as well.
Could someone please cite for me the sections that say government is bad? Or that favor one form of economy over another? I anxiously await enlightenment on this point.
About The Author
Marc Charisse is the editor of The Evening Sun. Dr. Charisse has a Ph.D. in First Amendment law and history, and has taught communication law and constitutional law at the University of Washington in Seattle and Jacksonville University in Jacksonville, Fla. Charisse can be reached at mcharisse@eveningsun.com.
Question:
Can you help a friend of mine and I in our search for anything in our Constitution which limits the rights of the PEOPLE?
(Beyond, of course, the common sense spirit of egalitarianism, i.e. “my rights end where yours begin”…and besides the 11th Amendment, which, as you probably already know, limits the ability of citizens to sue the government…)
Anything else?
There’s plenty that limits government, but what limits The People?
(And that question, in a sense, is an answer to your post…)
Thank you! And keep up the good work.
“The fabric of the American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” ~Alexander Hamilton
And there are countless more like this, from the other Founders.
From the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”
And, closer to home, from
Pennsylvania’s Constitution, under Article 1, Section 2 of the Declaration of Rights:
“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.”
I would say, it is the SPIRIT of our law (especially at its inception, but beyond it, too), as much the letter of it, that says, “Government bad, people good”.
Furthermore, I don’t think ANYONE would deny that federalism, as it was Constitutionally designed, has tipped so far in favor of centralized, federal power, that we’re now seeing such a host abuses, usurpations, and mandates that–judging by the standards of both the spirit AND letter of Constitutional law and common, reasonable interpretations of our Founders’ intent–would far exceed anything even closely resembling a “balance”.
In short, we have Arizona SB1070, Virginia (and about 35 other states) rejecting, blocking, or otherwise fighting Obamacare, we have medical marijuana, “sanctuary cities”, and on and on.
And so, it has become NECESSARY for the states to begin rebelling against the heavy-handed (dare I say, “tyrannical”?) policies and mandates of the fed.
And if we can see the obvious EFFECTS of tyranny–states rebelling, people gettig angry, engaging, mobilizing, and protesting this power en masse, anti-incumbent activist groups forming all across the country, etc. –isn’t it fair to say the CAUSE must in fact be there?
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire?
Did all of this happen by accident, coincidence?
Is it ALL politcally-motivated “astroturf”–even the states’ legislative actions?
Or has in fact the federal government SO over-reached its Constituional bounds, that anyone saying government has become “bad”, might actually have a point?
I think the Founders understood, inherently, that power and authority (government) tends to corrupt over time, it naturally inclines itself to perpetuate itself by amassing more power (and in this country, hasn’t it? over time?) and infringing more and more upon its subjects’ liberties.
Government and Liberty are existential polarities–the Founders sought to find a balance between the two, and codify it in the Constitution, limiting the former while affording as much of the latter as possible.
The reverse (counter) seal of the Commonwealth of Pa sums it up nicely: “Liberty Over Tyranny”.
Joe,
An excellent, thought-provoking question. There are, I believe, inherent limits on the rights of “the people” in the Constitution — much of the Bill of Rights, for example, protects the minority from the majority. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech and unpopular religions. As much as the founders respected the people, they also, I believe, feared the people might pass laws silencing dissenters, or laws abrogating debts or contracts. The courts, Hamilton says in Federalist # 10, were supposed to protect the rights of unpopular minorities because the courts are unelected and therefore not as likely to be pressured by popular sentiment.
Marc
Marc,
You’re not looking very hard. The founders of the country were so insistent on keeping government out of our lives that the entire document reeks with “anti” government instructions. They were so fed up with the authoritarianism of King George that they would be damned if they were going to allow a centralized power structure to run the people’s lives. Sure not all of the principle parties in the early history were puritans on that issue. Some thought without a strong central government we would be in danger of foreign aggression. But in a vast majority of the cases; the articles of confederation were replaced with a how to guideline for what our central government could do and anything it didn’t outline was left up to the states to decide for themselves. That’s the whole problem with the state of affairs we have now, it has been interpreted as “if it doesn’t specifically say we can’t then we can”.
America needs to get back to the point where individuals decide for themselves what education is right for their children. What charity will be their part, how they will scourge out a living for themselves and their family. The federal government will only balk but it is the states and in states I mean the people, who are responsible for judgement on these things.
Silence,
Bravo!
Check out our good work at http://www.hanoverteapartypatriots.org
Mr.HanoverTeaPartyPatriots.org;
I think the tea-party individuals are well-intentioned and honorable people. I would however caution them that placing new lawmakers in Washington isn’t the cureall that they expect it to be. The tea party (just as the Republican party and the Democratic party) need to define the values for which they are to be represented and then those candidates MUST be forced to do so. I remember the Reagan conservatives, I remember the “contract with America” – yet here we are still fighting the same fight 25+ years later. Why? – Because unchecked corruption begets corruption; unchallenged disgrace befalls more disgrace until the complacency of the people begins the cycle again. – We MUST keep the pressure on even when it appears our voices have been heard.
You asked, “Could someone please cite for me the sections that…favors one form of economy over another?”
So, what kind of economy do you long for Mr. Charrise? Apparently, not the free-market one that we have now. Nice to see that you are doing your part to, as Michelle Obama urged, “change our conversation.”