Wednesday, February 10, 2010
From Limited Government to Leviathan
I’ve had discussions with several people about the U.S. Constitution and whether many federal gov’t programs are unconstitutional or not. I recently discovered the attached short history of how our federal government evolved from what was intended by the founders to what we have today.
I especially like his point about legitimacy, and how political and legal legitimacy is established thru the constitutional process and not elections to fill offices.
The author does loose me a bit on page 4 when he argues that additional amendments wouldn’t solve the problem. I guess I see his point tying moral legitimacy to the Lockean theory of natural rights, and I do agree with that theory and the implications for limited government, but I’m not sure I agree that if a super-majority of Americans no longer felt tied that theory that they could not legitimately abandon those principles for others thru the amendment process.
Other than that single paragraph that I question, I think this letter very accurately captures what has happened at a high level, and why that is a bad thing for our nation. I highly recommend taking 10 minutes for a careful reading of it. I welcome your thoughts.
The article is also found here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv4n1.pdf
A few quotes:
"Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional because done without constitutional authority. Reducing that point to its essence, the Constitution says, in effect, that everything that is not authorized—to the government, by the people, through the Constitution— is forbidden. Progressives turned that on its head: Everything that is not forbidden is authorized.”
***
"The federal government gets its powers by delegation from the people through ratification—reflecting mainly the (natural) powers the people have to give it—not through subsequent elections, which are designed primarily to fill elective offices. To be sure, many of the powers thus delegated leave room for discretion by those elected. That is why elections matter: different candidates may have different views on the exercise of that discretion—the discretion to declare war, to take a clear example. But through elections the people can no more give government a power it does not have than they can take from individuals a right they do have. In a constitutional republic like ours, it is the Constitution that sets the powers, not the people through periodic elections. But when powers or rights are expanded or contracted not through ratification but through elections and the subsequent actions of elected officials, and the courts fail to check that, the Constitution is undermined and the powers thus created are illegitimate.”
I especially like his point about legitimacy, and how political and legal legitimacy is established thru the constitutional process and not elections to fill offices.
The author does loose me a bit on page 4 when he argues that additional amendments wouldn’t solve the problem. I guess I see his point tying moral legitimacy to the Lockean theory of natural rights, and I do agree with that theory and the implications for limited government, but I’m not sure I agree that if a super-majority of Americans no longer felt tied that theory that they could not legitimately abandon those principles for others thru the amendment process.
Other than that single paragraph that I question, I think this letter very accurately captures what has happened at a high level, and why that is a bad thing for our nation. I highly recommend taking 10 minutes for a careful reading of it. I welcome your thoughts.
The article is also found here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv4n1.pdf
A few quotes:
"Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional because done without constitutional authority. Reducing that point to its essence, the Constitution says, in effect, that everything that is not authorized—to the government, by the people, through the Constitution— is forbidden. Progressives turned that on its head: Everything that is not forbidden is authorized.”
***
"The federal government gets its powers by delegation from the people through ratification—reflecting mainly the (natural) powers the people have to give it—not through subsequent elections, which are designed primarily to fill elective offices. To be sure, many of the powers thus delegated leave room for discretion by those elected. That is why elections matter: different candidates may have different views on the exercise of that discretion—the discretion to declare war, to take a clear example. But through elections the people can no more give government a power it does not have than they can take from individuals a right they do have. In a constitutional republic like ours, it is the Constitution that sets the powers, not the people through periodic elections. But when powers or rights are expanded or contracted not through ratification but through elections and the subsequent actions of elected officials, and the courts fail to check that, the Constitution is undermined and the powers thus created are illegitimate.”
