Disenfranchised or disenchanted?
The wheels started falling off when we took power away from state and local governments.
The idea of “popular sovereignty” was developed out of the Enlightenment and is the main tenet upon which our Constitutional government is founded. It is the premise that the consent of the people (possessing individual rights) is what legitimizes government; that the people themselves hold sovereignty and power.
One needs to look back a little ways in history to fully grasp the meaning of such an idea. Before the Revolutionary War, the monarch was sovereign. “Divine Right” was what it was called, the idea that monarch’s were legitimized by God alone. This means that power did not come from the people, but rather through the monarch (or aristocracy). Power was concentrated at the highest level of government.
Do you see how the two beliefs are polar opposites? One system has power springing forth from the ground-up while the other has power flowing from the top down.
It makes perfect sense, then, the way our founding fathers created our current (or what should be our current) form of government. The majority of power was to be local, first in the township or county, then the state, and finally the national government. Power was thus constitutionally divided.
And why is this? The reasoning was that the sovereign (the individual) should have the greatest level of control over the laws which affect him. At which level is the individual most well represented? At the local level, where he is one of thousands, at the state level, where he is one of millions, or the Federal level, where he is one of hundreds of millions?
This is why the founding fathers gave so much power to the state; power which, after the nationalist surge of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has been wrestled away--a trend that has proven most unwise.
Let’s take, for example, laws regarding morality. What are the mores of the American people which might govern its laws? Certainly, there are some universal mores which we can apply, those applying to theft and murder, to name a few. But let’s take some less black-and-white issues, such as recreational drugs and abortion. There is no clear consensus among the people! However, at a lower level of government, such a consensus is more easily obtained. While the people in more progressive states, such as California or Massachusetts, may be in favor of legalizing both, the people of more conservative states may not be. This is exactly the reason why moral issues were left to the states and is not the responsibility of the Federal government!
So too it goes with the majority of internal government spending and action. Why is it that the Federal government, the government which collects taxes from all the people, spends money to benefit only a few? And it does so without the express consent of the people? I’m not talking Medicare, Social Security, or other programs which did have public sport at the time of their passage. I’m talking about “shovel-ready” projects, bail-outs of industries concentrated in a few States…I’m talking about planetariums in the city of Chicago! What does it concern me, as a Texan, that a $10M planetarium is built in the city of Chicago?
But it goes deeper than that, because what did the people of Chicago pay for this planetarium? Only a fraction of the cost, the remainder being spread amongst the nation. What reason, then, do the people of Chicago have to ensure that the costs are justified? A vote on a $0.01 sales tax increase in the City of Chicago to finance such spending will truly show whether the project is worth the cost! Such local spending should have its source at the local level, both in terms of financing and execution. This is the way our founders saw it!
Deeper still it goes, with the “strings attached” by the Federal government, whether we’re talking about bank/auto company bail outs, highway funding, or others. What we have allowed is a means for the Federal government to bribe or bludgeon lower levels of government to its own will; with the people’s money! Remember Jimmy Carters 55MPH speed limit? Or the drinking age? Those states who resisted or “opted out” have certainly not forgotten!
It is my belief, to this day, that the wheels started falling off the American system when we made a radical departure from the Constitution, from the Federal System of Separation of Powers, not only between the branches of government, but the levels of government. A concentration of power into the highest level of government, a level where the individual has the least say, has caused nothing but sorrow, suffering, and strife for our country. Yes, it was trendy at the time with “nationalism” surging across Europe. But such a concentration of federal power is completely antithetical to the idea of popular sovereignty! It harkens more to a system of government that the American people fought to replace!
When, then, will the people wake up? Will it take a small majority trampling on the will of a large minority (read health care)? Or will such an awakening happen too late, when the dollar has no value and the country is in shambles (read the debt)?
Only time will tell.
The idea of “popular sovereignty” was developed out of the Enlightenment and is the main tenet upon which our Constitutional government is founded. It is the premise that the consent of the people (possessing individual rights) is what legitimizes government; that the people themselves hold sovereignty and power.
One needs to look back a little ways in history to fully grasp the meaning of such an idea. Before the Revolutionary War, the monarch was sovereign. “Divine Right” was what it was called, the idea that monarch’s were legitimized by God alone. This means that power did not come from the people, but rather through the monarch (or aristocracy). Power was concentrated at the highest level of government.
Do you see how the two beliefs are polar opposites? One system has power springing forth from the ground-up while the other has power flowing from the top down.
It makes perfect sense, then, the way our founding fathers created our current (or what should be our current) form of government. The majority of power was to be local, first in the township or county, then the state, and finally the national government. Power was thus constitutionally divided.
And why is this? The reasoning was that the sovereign (the individual) should have the greatest level of control over the laws which affect him. At which level is the individual most well represented? At the local level, where he is one of thousands, at the state level, where he is one of millions, or the Federal level, where he is one of hundreds of millions?
This is why the founding fathers gave so much power to the state; power which, after the nationalist surge of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has been wrestled away--a trend that has proven most unwise.
Let’s take, for example, laws regarding morality. What are the mores of the American people which might govern its laws? Certainly, there are some universal mores which we can apply, those applying to theft and murder, to name a few. But let’s take some less black-and-white issues, such as recreational drugs and abortion. There is no clear consensus among the people! However, at a lower level of government, such a consensus is more easily obtained. While the people in more progressive states, such as California or Massachusetts, may be in favor of legalizing both, the people of more conservative states may not be. This is exactly the reason why moral issues were left to the states and is not the responsibility of the Federal government!
So too it goes with the majority of internal government spending and action. Why is it that the Federal government, the government which collects taxes from all the people, spends money to benefit only a few? And it does so without the express consent of the people? I’m not talking Medicare, Social Security, or other programs which did have public sport at the time of their passage. I’m talking about “shovel-ready” projects, bail-outs of industries concentrated in a few States…I’m talking about planetariums in the city of Chicago! What does it concern me, as a Texan, that a $10M planetarium is built in the city of Chicago?
But it goes deeper than that, because what did the people of Chicago pay for this planetarium? Only a fraction of the cost, the remainder being spread amongst the nation. What reason, then, do the people of Chicago have to ensure that the costs are justified? A vote on a $0.01 sales tax increase in the City of Chicago to finance such spending will truly show whether the project is worth the cost! Such local spending should have its source at the local level, both in terms of financing and execution. This is the way our founders saw it!
Deeper still it goes, with the “strings attached” by the Federal government, whether we’re talking about bank/auto company bail outs, highway funding, or others. What we have allowed is a means for the Federal government to bribe or bludgeon lower levels of government to its own will; with the people’s money! Remember Jimmy Carters 55MPH speed limit? Or the drinking age? Those states who resisted or “opted out” have certainly not forgotten!
It is my belief, to this day, that the wheels started falling off the American system when we made a radical departure from the Constitution, from the Federal System of Separation of Powers, not only between the branches of government, but the levels of government. A concentration of power into the highest level of government, a level where the individual has the least say, has caused nothing but sorrow, suffering, and strife for our country. Yes, it was trendy at the time with “nationalism” surging across Europe. But such a concentration of federal power is completely antithetical to the idea of popular sovereignty! It harkens more to a system of government that the American people fought to replace!
When, then, will the people wake up? Will it take a small majority trampling on the will of a large minority (read health care)? Or will such an awakening happen too late, when the dollar has no value and the country is in shambles (read the debt)?
Only time will tell.
posted by Cogito at 1:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home