Strong Local Self-government is the Keystone to Preserving Human Freedom.
Keystone: 1.) the central wedge-shaped stone that supports all the others. 2.) The central supporting element of a whole. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/keystone
I've often wondered why the early citizens of the several states were so interested in liberty and freedom. After reading this chapter I believe that it's because they were so far away from British rule that they had to institute some form of self-government which then awakened within each citizen this desire to have a say in their government. It awakened a longing for freedom, they were in line with 'Natural Law' or principles and they saw the success of that. Once they tasted freedom, any attacks on that freedom were seen with disdain. Many were led to study principles of freedom, which led to our government set up according to Natural Law and limited to basic governmental functions with checks to prevent usurpation.
Since this is a keystone of preserving freedom, how can we institute strong local self-government again? How do we assert our right to self-governance when a central government is encroaching on that right, without causing civil war?
Saturday, July 4, 2009
20th Principle of Freedom
Efficiency and Dispatch Require Government to Operate According to the Will of the Majority, but Constitutional Provisions Must be Made to Protect the Rights of the Minority.
I have been known to think that requiring unanimity in congress would have been a great idea because then they couldn't accomplish anything, they would be mired in trying to get 100% support for an idea, and that would severely limit an erosion of the protection of the rights of the people. However, I can see why this wouldn't work now. If unanimity were required, then a radical, small portion of congress could stop all progress on any bill. Because there are certain matters that must be addressed by law, the majority of congress would seek to appease the radical minorities. These radical minorities would ask for small changes to the bill, or support for their bill. The mainstream majority would do a little evil to do a lot of good (in their eyes). This kind of give and take over time, would lead to more destruction of the limits of governmental powers than the current system I think.
I have been known to think that requiring unanimity in congress would have been a great idea because then they couldn't accomplish anything, they would be mired in trying to get 100% support for an idea, and that would severely limit an erosion of the protection of the rights of the people. However, I can see why this wouldn't work now. If unanimity were required, then a radical, small portion of congress could stop all progress on any bill. Because there are certain matters that must be addressed by law, the majority of congress would seek to appease the radical minorities. These radical minorities would ask for small changes to the bill, or support for their bill. The mainstream majority would do a little evil to do a lot of good (in their eyes). This kind of give and take over time, would lead to more destruction of the limits of governmental powers than the current system I think.
19th Principle of Freedom
Only Limited and Carefully Defined Powers Should be Delegated to Government, All Others Being Retained in the People.
The 'Bill of Rights' is improperly named. Those first ten amendments do not grant unto the people certain rights. They merely limit the government's ability to trample those rights. The first amendment does not grant unto us the right of free speech, the second does not grant unto us the right to keep and bear arms, they limit the government from being able to encroach upon those rights. It should be named the 'Bill of Limitations' or something similar. The same thing with the Constitution before the amendments, it does not grant unto the people any rights, neither does the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution merely grants and limits governmental powers and the Declaration merely states some of the God-given rights of man.
One miracle of this idea of strong states and a strong central government is that a state cannot trample on our rights either. If it wasn't for the constant power struggle between the federal and state governments, any state could quickly fall into anarchy or tyranny. These two powers are a check on each other, not just a check on federal government.
Do you think the founding fathers were clear enough in their wording in limiting federal power? Do you think they could have done more in limiting state power?
The 'Bill of Rights' is improperly named. Those first ten amendments do not grant unto the people certain rights. They merely limit the government's ability to trample those rights. The first amendment does not grant unto us the right of free speech, the second does not grant unto us the right to keep and bear arms, they limit the government from being able to encroach upon those rights. It should be named the 'Bill of Limitations' or something similar. The same thing with the Constitution before the amendments, it does not grant unto the people any rights, neither does the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution merely grants and limits governmental powers and the Declaration merely states some of the God-given rights of man.
One miracle of this idea of strong states and a strong central government is that a state cannot trample on our rights either. If it wasn't for the constant power struggle between the federal and state governments, any state could quickly fall into anarchy or tyranny. These two powers are a check on each other, not just a check on federal government.
Do you think the founding fathers were clear enough in their wording in limiting federal power? Do you think they could have done more in limiting state power?
Thursday, July 2, 2009
18th Principle of Freedom
The Unalienable Rights of the People are Most Likely to be Preserved if the Principles of Government are Set Forth in a Written Constitution.
And the rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if that Constitution represents the wisdom and input of many individuals rather than just one or two people.
One thing that is mentioned in this chapter that I wasn't familiar with before was the 'Fundamental Orders of Connecticut' established in 1639 (Gregorian Calander). This document states that, "where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God..."(http://www.constitution.org/bcp/fo_1639.htm).
They referred to God as their highest power and directly involved with them. They did not place 'the crown' or anything else between them and their Creator. I know why the founders did not reference God, but I think it would have prevented God from being removed from government, schools, and society in general. And if our society hadn't forgotten God, and placed him as the highest authority, a lot of our current ills would have never been realized.
And the rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if that Constitution represents the wisdom and input of many individuals rather than just one or two people.
One thing that is mentioned in this chapter that I wasn't familiar with before was the 'Fundamental Orders of Connecticut' established in 1639 (Gregorian Calander). This document states that, "where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God..."(http://www.constitution.org/bcp/fo_1639.htm).
They referred to God as their highest power and directly involved with them. They did not place 'the crown' or anything else between them and their Creator. I know why the founders did not reference God, but I think it would have prevented God from being removed from government, schools, and society in general. And if our society hadn't forgotten God, and placed him as the highest authority, a lot of our current ills would have never been realized.
17th Principle of Freedom
A System of Checks and Balances Should be Adopted to Prevent the Abuse of Power.
This principle seems obvious, that someone should have the ability to check those in power. This power ultimately lies in the people. However, our founding fathers recognized (in their own 'checking' of power) that leaving check and balance solely in the people can result in bloodshed when tyrants are overthrown, which can often lead to anarchy, which leads people to seek a dictator to establish peace, who becomes a tyrant, thus starting the cycle over.
Another important part of this check and balance system instituted by the Constitution is that the different branches of government are prohibited from usurping the responsibilites and powers of the other branches. Judges are prohibited from legislating from the bench (interpreting old laws in new ways), the Executive officer (President) is prohibited from legislating from the white house (Executive Orders). The legislature can't execute their laws, they can only pass them.
It seems to me as I think about the usurping of authority that the Executive Branch is usurping legislative authority from the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch is usurping legislative authority and executive authority from the other two branches. Since power is being usurped from the legislative branch, they are in turn usurping power from the people. I'm sure there are ways that the legislative is usurping power from the judicial and executive, and ways that the executive is usurping power from the judicial branch, but I don't recognize them clearly like I do the other's mentioned. Can you think of some ways? Can you think of a better system of checks and balances? The other important thing to remember is that if we leave the federal government alone to check itself, even if they are divided into three branches, they won't always check themselves. What can we do to check government?
This principle seems obvious, that someone should have the ability to check those in power. This power ultimately lies in the people. However, our founding fathers recognized (in their own 'checking' of power) that leaving check and balance solely in the people can result in bloodshed when tyrants are overthrown, which can often lead to anarchy, which leads people to seek a dictator to establish peace, who becomes a tyrant, thus starting the cycle over.
Another important part of this check and balance system instituted by the Constitution is that the different branches of government are prohibited from usurping the responsibilites and powers of the other branches. Judges are prohibited from legislating from the bench (interpreting old laws in new ways), the Executive officer (President) is prohibited from legislating from the white house (Executive Orders). The legislature can't execute their laws, they can only pass them.
It seems to me as I think about the usurping of authority that the Executive Branch is usurping legislative authority from the Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch is usurping legislative authority and executive authority from the other two branches. Since power is being usurped from the legislative branch, they are in turn usurping power from the people. I'm sure there are ways that the legislative is usurping power from the judicial and executive, and ways that the executive is usurping power from the judicial branch, but I don't recognize them clearly like I do the other's mentioned. Can you think of some ways? Can you think of a better system of checks and balances? The other important thing to remember is that if we leave the federal government alone to check itself, even if they are divided into three branches, they won't always check themselves. What can we do to check government?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
16th Principle of Freedom
The Government Should be Separated into Three Branches - Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.
I don't know what to write about this principle. What I was surprised to read is that many of the founding fathers were against separated government at the federal level, even though many of them used it at the state level. It seems to me that the best way to prevent a monarchy is to separate each government process (legislating, executing law, and judging law) into three separate bodies (President, Congress, Courts). I do know that many fear an aristocracy more than a monarchy, one tyrant is better than 500.
Do you think three branches are better for Federal Government? Would it be better if legislating and judging the law were left to the States and executing those laws was reserved for a president at the federal level? Would it give the States more control over Federal Government? And would that be a good thing?
15th Principle of Freedom
The Highest Level of Prosperity Occurs when there is a Free-market Economy and a Minimum of Government Regulations.
I only have one topic I would like to cover concerning this principle. Preventing "debauchery of the cultural standards and moral fiber of society by commercial exploitation of vice - pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, [and] commercial gambling" is listed as an area "of legitimate responsibility which properly [belongs] to the government." (The 5000 Year Leap pg. 181) This is one of the few areas that the government is to be allowed to regulate commerce.
In a colloquium on the Declaration of Independence I held my ground that government should not legislate against pornography, that it would open a floodgate of legislation allowing the government to hinder any type of business they would like. Through study of 'The 500o Year Leap' and internal pondering, I realize I was wrong. I do think that it could possibly open such a floodgate, but that is because the moral fiber of the people has gone down the tubes, and few know anything about Natural Law, or how to tell what is natural law and what is not. Individuals have forgotten to listen to the Spirit of God within them, revealing truth. If we, as the general public were to turn back to natural law, then we would elect those who understand natural law and then they would legislate according to natural law. This can only be achieved through education, self-education...You, Not Them.
PS. I do have a question for anyone that would like to comment. The US Constitution states that Congress has power "To coin money, regulate the value therof..." (Article I, Section IIX). Instead they have delegated that responsibility to a private bank, the Federal Reserve. Would Congress do a better job than the Federal Reserve? Why?
I only have one topic I would like to cover concerning this principle. Preventing "debauchery of the cultural standards and moral fiber of society by commercial exploitation of vice - pornography, obscenity, drugs, liquor, prostitution, [and] commercial gambling" is listed as an area "of legitimate responsibility which properly [belongs] to the government." (The 5000 Year Leap pg. 181) This is one of the few areas that the government is to be allowed to regulate commerce.
In a colloquium on the Declaration of Independence I held my ground that government should not legislate against pornography, that it would open a floodgate of legislation allowing the government to hinder any type of business they would like. Through study of 'The 500o Year Leap' and internal pondering, I realize I was wrong. I do think that it could possibly open such a floodgate, but that is because the moral fiber of the people has gone down the tubes, and few know anything about Natural Law, or how to tell what is natural law and what is not. Individuals have forgotten to listen to the Spirit of God within them, revealing truth. If we, as the general public were to turn back to natural law, then we would elect those who understand natural law and then they would legislate according to natural law. This can only be achieved through education, self-education...You, Not Them.
PS. I do have a question for anyone that would like to comment. The US Constitution states that Congress has power "To coin money, regulate the value therof..." (Article I, Section IIX). Instead they have delegated that responsibility to a private bank, the Federal Reserve. Would Congress do a better job than the Federal Reserve? Why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)