Tyranny Redux
Here is a good article by Mike Maharrey entitled, “America Embraces the Tyranny its Founders Fought to Reject.” After a good discussion of our founding, and the differences in our Constitution and that of Great Britain, it concludes:
Even a casual look at American governance today reveals a system having much more in common with the 18th century British model than the one the founding generation forged nearly 250 years ago. America operates under a “living breathing†constitution with the U.S. Supreme Court taking on the role of sovereign.
In 1776, the British Parliament acted with absolute sovereign authority. Today, the federal government rules with that same kind of unlimited power. The federal government determines the extent of its own authority through the Supreme Court. Any limits on Congress or the president are merely theoretical, constrained only by the whims of five out of nine politically connected lawyers. Every opinion of the Supreme Court becomes “part of the fabric of the Constitution.â€
For all practical purposes, the federal government today operates without any limits at all. Everything the federal government does and approves is considered “constitutional.â€
Even though the founders committed the U.S. Constitution to parchment, judges, politicians and academics have morphed the meaning of words and changed the character of the “supreme law of the land†into something that the framers and ratifiers would scarcely recognize.
Americans won the Revolution, but they squandered the fruits of victory in a quest for government solutions to every problem. Instead of a limited government committed to protecting basic rights – life liberty and property – we have an institution that attempts to control every aspect of our lives.
We have become what our forefathers sought to destroy.
“…politically connected lawyers.” What a deliciously derisive term for the Supreme Court! That goes into my bag of clever aphorisms for future use. 🙂
Otherwise, there is nothing amusing about this recurring theme that we have already lost our republic, and there is little we can do about it. :(Â â—„Daveâ–º
The American Republic was destroyed by the Civil War, more specifically by Abraham Lincoln and his administration. If we take the slavery question out of the equation, for sake of discussion, and concentrate only on the political ramifications we find something interesting:
Lincoln was focused on preserving the Union, the secessionists were focused on dismembering it. Each side had valid arguments to offer in support of their cause. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln’s viewpoint prevailed.
What is missed, IMHO, is that, going into the conflict, we had a Union of Sovereign States. True, Mr. Lincoln preserved the Union but he failed to preserve the Sovereignty of the States so that, emerging from the conflict was a Union of Vassal States. The rest, as they say, is history.
Troy
Good points, Troy. I would only quibble with:
The so-called ‘Civil War,’ could more properly be labeled ‘American Revolution II.’ Southerners, fed up with the tyranny of the Federal government’s oppressive and unconstitutional meddling in their local affairs, declared their independence by simply canceling their membership in the US Federation, and forming a new Confederation among like-minded States. All that is necessary to comprehend their absolute right to do so, is a cursory reading of the Declaration of Independence.
Thus, by the time the hostilities began, the secessionists had already dismembered Lincoln’s Union, and it was a war between two independent unions of ostensibly sovereign States. The Southern entity, basically only wishing to be left alone, was defending their right to maintain their independence. The Northern entity, wishing to continue to impose their values on them, was fighting to reconquer and subjugate the impudent rebels.
Yes, Lincoln’s forces prevailed, and the Confederation was conquered. To the victor went the spoils. Unfortunately, as you suggest, all the States in the recombined Federation, suffered the irreversible loss of sovereignty in the punitive reconstruction aftermath. 🙁 â—„Daveâ–º
I sometimes believe that the constitution can be it’s own worst enemy. Ponder it absent the bill of rights. Without mention of any rights of individuals but simply as an agreement of common defense free travel and open trade between member states. Thus leaving all issues of rights of property, “general welfare” and liberty up to the states. Might say Georgia possibly still have slavery? It’s possible but there would be no basis for the federal government to care. New York State may have gay marriage but it would have been the state supreme court that decided it. The ruling wouldn’t even be news worthy in Texas. Sure there would be a hodge podge of laws on different things across the country but so what? Don’t like your state move to another or lobby your much closer smaller government for change. The 10th amendment is actually supposed to make it like that but because the rights of the individual are laid out in the US constitution an over zealous federal government thinks it their job to arbitrate them. A bill of rights could have as easily been laid out in each states constitution. Would have saved a lot of trouble.
There are no sovereign states. That was proven with the civil war. If an entity is truly sovereign that at least implies a freedom to associate with who or what you wish. The south was denied disassociation. Now states are allowed to pass only the laws that the federal government wants to let them pass.
Interesting perspective, worth pondering, Chris.
I would quibble with your last paragraph, to say there are no longer any sovereign States, and that it was changed with the Civil War. That the original intent of the Constitution was that they retain their sovereignty seems unquestionable. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º
Still pondering… perhaps what needs to be done is to repeal ALL Amendments to the Constitution after the first five words:
…full stop. End it right there and we would have a winner. Our rights could no longer be in jeopardy from an impotent Congress.
But wait… what about executive orders, bureaucratic regulations, and judicial fiat? Maybe we should just scrap the whole damn thing and consider anarchy. That way, everyone will be too busy covering their own butts, to have time to try to meddle in the affairs of their neighbors. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º