|
Government cannot vote on its own authority
Christian Twiste
,
11/29/2009 1:36:23 PM
What freedom do we really have if someone else can vote to take it away?
Once upon a time in America, the people sought to limit government power and interference in their lives by carefully crafting political institutions that operated without unlimited authority. Tired of capricious kings and queens that were able to exert their will on a whim, Americans like John Adams embraced a “government of laws and not of men,” founded in the belief that rulers must govern under an agreed upon code—a Constitution—that strictly limits their power over fellow citizens.
Chief Justice John Marshall described it shortly after the founding of the United States: This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent…that principle is now universally admitted.
Simply put, the American people have never given the powers-that-be a blank check to rule as they wish and pass whatever laws they desire regardless of any apparent political mandate or perceived national crisis. Instead, a legally binding Constitution strictly proscribes what government can and cannot do whoever maybe in power at the moment.
Furthermore, the government alone cannot alter these rules or increase its authority—the Constitution maybe amended but, in the case of the Federal Government, only after approval by a large majority of the States, in this case acting as outside bodies independent of Federal authority. The alternative is tyranny—a ruling class that can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, solely because it wants to.
Unfortunately, as our government has grown progressively larger and more powerful than the Founders ever dreamt possible, our leaders and many of our fellow citizens have completely abandoned this very basic and absolutely essential principle. Today, members of Congress and the President seem to believe that anything and everything is within their authority—if only they vote on it.
Hence, the hostile takeover of one sixth of the entire US economy that is “healthcare reform” will happen if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can bribe enough Senators with enough taxpayer dollars to vote for it. The debate is not centered around whether or not the Constitution grants anyone the authority to unilaterally dictate healthcare policy for private citizens, only whether the Democrats can round up the necessary votes.
Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana set the starting price at $300 million. What else will it take to get to the magic 60 in the Senate? Beyond the absurdity of 60 people making private decisions for 300 million others in a country founded on personal freedom, Obama, Reid, and the rest of the healthcare supporters are implicitly endorsing the frightening proposition that government can increase its own power with a simple vote.
In the context of the healthcare debate, the government does not currently possess—nor has it ever possessed—the authority contained in the current bills, and—yet all that stands between us and a whole new era of government controlled healthcare—are the votes of people currently in the government and, quite conveniently, in a position to exercise that new authority themselves.
The same warped, Democracy-destroying logic informs the growing debate over cap and trade legislation to “combat” global warming and—amazingly—Obama’s recent “request” to be placed in charge of all subways, light rails, and other metro-transit trains in the country.
In the case of cap and trade, the segment of the private sector in question is energy and the new authority would be suite of sweeping controls over everything from energy production to energy consumption—areas which, if anything, touch even more parts of our lives than healthcare. Once again, the people in government will decide what new powers they will possess—and also whether or not they should possess them. You and I will just have to live with the results.
I know there are millions of people who genuinely believe that healthcare reform, cap and trade legislation, and more would be good for the country, but—as the Founding Fathers were all too keenly aware—government based on what is “good” at the moment is a one way path to slavery. Today’s leadership will not be the same as tomorrow’s, and eventually everyone will find themselves on the losing end of some new government initiative—if those initiatives are constrained only by the will of whoever’s in power.
What limit then exists on these mortal gods that can make both their own rules and the rules the rest of us have to live by? What freedom do we really have if someone else can vote to take it away?
Contact the author at
christian@eatthemushroom.com
.
About the author: Christian Twiste isn't really qualified to comment on any of the topics he prefers to write about, but that's never stopped him from trying.
|
