Are Government and Abuse of Power Inseparable?

Government is power over people.  And those who represent it often relish the opportunity to exercise that authority. 

That observation is not meant to disparage, as such, those who are part of government.  But the possession of power can be intoxicating to its holder.    A mid-19^th century French philosopher, Frederic Bastiat, put the point succinctly:  “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Some recent examples of that principle in practice –

*** The Federal Environmental Protection Agency sought to fine an Idaho couple $75,000 a day for what it claimed was a violation of the Clean Water Act.  That Act was meant to prevent pollution in “open navigable waters”.  The fact that there was no water on the property (although there was a lake nearby) did not deter the EPA from its enforcement efforts against the homeowners.  After all, even if the attempt to apply the Clean Water Act to the Idaho situation might seem unjustified to EPA critics, agency personnel no doubt reassured themselves that their motives were pure.  They were trying to protect the environment.  Thus, their actions were appropriate.

*** A Transportation Security Agency (TSA) airport screener does a full body pat down on a three year old child.  In a different setting that individual would be facing child molestation charges.  But, of course, he was “only” protecting the traveling public.  The same goes for the TSA employee who required a ninety-five year old passenger to remover her diaper prior to her pat-down.

*** And then there’s the Federal Justice Department’s prosecution of former Presidential candidate John Edwards.  I have no regard for this person’s politics or behavior, but it does seem a peculiar – and unwarranted – expansion of campaign finance law to charge him with a criminal violation because he specifically solicited funds to keep knowledge of his affair and love child out of the public domain during his campaign.  John Edwards is not an admirable person.  But that should not constitute a crime. 

A common thread to all of these examples – and as anyone knows who has worked for the government or observed it in operation, there are myriad others -- is an expansion of powers beyond that which were intended to be granted by Congress.

In almost all instances, I suspect, those expanding that power are doing so, they perceive, for the public benefit and the good of society. 

What’s wrong with that?  Plenty.  Who gave them the right to make such decisions? 

Human nature is indeed what it is.  Reflecting on that fact reminds us two hundred and twenty-five years later how very wise our Nation’s Founders were in giving us a Federal Government which was crafted to have limited powers.

The answer to the title of this piece, emphatically, is yes.

Does “Limited Government” Mean Anything Any More?

Listening to Liberal pundits and politicians, one would think not. 

What has happened to the concept that infused the deliberations in the Constitutional Convention of 1787?

Having thrown off the yoke of Imperial Britain a few years earlier, America’s founders were keenly aware of the need to restrain the power of the national government.  Interestingly, the Constitution that was made public in September of that year did not contain a formal limitation on Federal authority.  James Madison, the charter’s primary author, argued in The Federalist Papers that such a pronouncement was unnecessary because the Constitution recited powers possessed by the National Government; implicitly, those not mentioned were excluded. 

Such assurances, on this and other concerns, were not satisfactory to many, Thomas Jefferson included.  Thus, to obtain approval by the States, the Bill of Rights was appended.  On the subject at hand, the Ninth Amendment stated: 

            The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be

             construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And in an apparent effort to make sure that this language would be understood as a limitation on Federal authority, the Tenth Amendment provided:

            The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
            prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
             to the people.

That is the meaning of “limited government.”  Is its preservation important? 

The Founders understood human nature well.  Those in authority desire to exercise power over others.  This fact does not require that those in power be malevolent to pose a danger.  But there is an urge to make people do what they “should do” regardless of their wishes.  Those with power to rule typically think that they know best.  Without restraint, such attitudes pose a grave threat to liberty.  The road to hell – to tyranny – is indeed paved with good intentions. 

Borrowing from Montesquieu, the Constitution enshrines the principle of balance of power within the Federal Government (Executive versus Legislative versus Judicial) with a Constitutional limitation on the scope of such powers over the States and individuals. 

So what are we to make of Nancy Pelosi’s incredulity when asked in 2009 whether Obamacare is constitutional?  One got the impression that she considered the query irrelevant.  The legislation was seen as good policy; that’s all that mattered.  Her view is hardly unique on the left, including both political and legal circles.

Of course, all national leaders take an oath to uphold the Constitution.  But how many are truly sincere?  When pressed, some claim adherence to a “living constitution”, meaning it permits implementation of desired policy.  Others consider it but a guide, as if obedience to the law of the land is optional.

Some are even bolder in their abandonment of the constitutionally-induced inhibitions on Federal authority.

Last year, for instance, a Georgetown University law professor (of constitutional law!) commented on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health reform by saying “what we ought to be talking about is whether this is a good idea or not, not whether James Madison would have thought this is a good idea”.

Isn’t that rather like saying it’s ok to ignore a law if it proscribes what a person wants to do?  The appropriate position one might have expected a constitutional scholar to take is rather obvious.  Amend the Constitution.

To proceed as the professor and his brethren in and out of the academy would have us do would be to increase the assault upon the Founders’ plan to insure, in perpetuity, that America would be a nation of laws, not of the transient will of men.

Why Does President Obama Say Such Outrageous Things?

In recent months, President Obama has made a number of statements which strike many – not just conservatives – as both false and ridiculous. 

Some examples of his utterances:

          *The Supreme Court, when deciding on the Constitutionality of Obamacare, must obey the will of Congress since to do otherwise would be “unprecedented, extraordinary”.  [Hardly.  Since 1803 (Marbury v Madison), the Supreme Court has overturned Congressional actions on 165 occasions.]

          * A 30 percent tax on those earning over one million dollars annually is necessary to “stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade”.  [He’s kidding right?  The congressional tax committee projects that such a hike would generate less than 5 billion dollars a year in revenue.  Alas, that amounts to a .1% (1/10^th not 1%!) of annual expenditures (4.7 trillion) proposed by the Administration over the next ten years.  And our budget deficit for 2011 was 1.3 trillion!

          *The budget proposal drafted by Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan which has been adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives and endorsed by Mitt Romney is a “radical proposal” and a “prescription for decline”.  [Really?  The GOP budget would reform Medicaid and restructure Medicare and slow – not eliminate – the growth of the national debt at a sharper rate than the President has in mind.]

Why does Barack Obama say such outrageous things?

A cynic, like Republican campaign guru Karl Rove, says it’s all politics.  Undeniably, President Obama is a very bright, well informed individual.  He’s simply trotting out campaign themes which will solidify his Democratic Party base and turn independents against the GOP.  Certainly, he knows the statements aren’t true.

Or does he?

Maybe the President prefers to believe what he wants to.  If these were the days of the Clinton era, one would probably be correct in asserting that Bill Clinton would calculate the political impact of everything he said.  He wouldn’t necessarily believe any of it.

But Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton.  His roots are in left-wing Chicago politics.  Remember, he was a “community activist” who was a decades- long member of radical Rev. Wright’s congregation and a friend of Weatherman terrorist William Ayres. 

It is highly likely that the vocal sentiments recited above are his genuine views.  Perhaps he’s simply a “true believer”.  Since he knows the truth, there must be something wrong with those who disagree.

After all, isn’t there a high likelihood that the President’s inflammatory remarks are prompted by his belief that those in opposition can only be motivated by ignorance and/or ill-will?  He may very well be of the view that one simply cannot converse with such people in a rational, civilized manner.  They are beyond the pale and, therefore, unworthy of respect.

Is it any wonder, then, that conservatives are so hostile to President Barack Obama?

Easter Thoughts

Without faith it is impossible to please God,

because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists

and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

                                                                                                   --Hebrews 11:6

                                                                  



Be still, and know that I am God;

I will be exalted among the nations,

I will be exalted in the earth.

                                                                                                   -- Psalm 46:10