September 17th is Constitution day. Annually there is little to no recognition of this holiday. July 4th means nothing without the framework of liberty, justice, peace and morality found in the Constitution. Unfortunately, nowadays most Americans don't realize this. Corporate media, federally funded schools, the welfare/warfare state, blind nationalism, and questionable morality have led this generation to move away from freedoms envisioned by the founding fathers. It has become common place for federal policy to disregard the Bill of Rights. And when tyranny is legalized it then becomes as it was said by Frederick Bastiat in The Law, "that plunder is a right, so that it is protected and self-defense is made a crime so that it is punished."
Take for example the 17th Amendment. This amendment changed the method for electing U.S. senators to office. In the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section III identifies the state legislature as the electing body for U.S. senators and deciding on presidential-electors. The 17th amendment changed the electorate of U.S. senators and presidential electors from the state legislature to "the people". Initially I asked, "Why is this change to having "the people" as direct electors of Senators and presidential-electors considered a negative for preserving liberty?"
In the manual The Citizen's Rule Book they comment that the 17th amendment deals with;
direct elections of senators; electors; and vacancies in the senate, and took effect May 31st 1913. This moved the U.S. from a complex Republic to a simple republic much like the style of government of the Soviet Union. State rights were lost and we were plunged headlong in to a democracy of which our forefathers warned was the vilest form of government because it always ends in oppression.
Sheldon Richman, formerly of Delaware, is a political writer for a nationally distributed publication and explains the implication of the changes in 17th amendment. In an article written for the Future of Freedom Foundation Journal in its December 2000 issue titled, "Don't just keep the Electoral College; Repeal the 17th Amendment" he asks, "What was the function of the Constitution?" And then intimates, "To restrain the central government". Mr. Richman continues by stating that;
The document is a device for dispersing power, because concentrated power is inimical to freedom. A related purpose was to thwart majorities that would trample individual freedom. There is an invisible line between democracy and mob rule. The main method the Founders hit on to contain central power and mob rule was federalism: the maintenance of the states as sovereign entities.
Mr. Richman then opines that federalism is a concession, in which;
the preference for states' rights is merely a recognition of a tradeoff: decentralized power rather than centralized power. If government becomes intolerably oppressive, it is easier to change states than to change countries. Voting with the feet should be kept as cheap as possible.
By the application of federalisim, states were meant to be autonomous and in competition with each other. This competition was meant to bring about excellence in policy and administration.
Also in defense of States' rights, Mr. Richman adds;
That the Framers were men of wealth and property is no valid objection to their handiwork. Private property is indispensable to freedom and prosperity - even, or especially, for those who own little. Envious mobs are too easily whipped up by opportunistic politicians to keep property safe in a democracy. That's one reason the Framers devised the Electoral College: it was to be a buffer between unruly majorities and the rights of the smallest minority, the individual.
Those who are for resisting the overreach of government must also seek to resist the over reach of the mob mentality. Those who claim to support individual rights must also disdain the use of collective force to infringe upon the rights of any individual.
In the words of Ayn Rand, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.
I believe the idiom that a society is celebrated by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. For me, this is the defining grace of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution identified the liberty of the individual as the measure of the freedom of in the different states. Therefore, protecting the rights of individuals is and should be the paramount priority of this society. So, if the United States claims to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people yet fails to acknowledge the sacred position of individual rights and thus property rights, this is known as a tyranny of the majority, and exhibits the baseness of the Latin term demos regula, mob rule otherwise known as democracy. And to that I say Restore the Republic! Legalize the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The need to protect against government over reach and mob mentality should ever remind us to place principles above personalities. This is what truly serves the common welfare; unselfish adherence to the principal of individual liberty by elected officials and "the people".
When individual liberty is not in the ultimate ethos of the national conscience, the great experiment is at an end. The great American experiment regarding the love of autonomy, faith in the goodness of people and the importance of personal and local responsibility has ceased to be. The "united states of America", as it was intended, will have ceased to be while the Constitution is rendered devoid of purpose and meaning.
Compiled by Mark Parks
Newark, DE
Categories: Law, US Constitution, Philosophy Tags:
No comments yet.
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|