Saturday, April 11, 2009

The Principles of Liberty (Nineteen)

Principles of Liberty (Nineteen)
By William Pressgrove

“Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained in the people.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 223)

With the state of affairs in our country today, this is one of the principles that must be considered most profoundly. Over time the federal government has taken control of almost all of the responsibilities that the States used to have. The reason this has happened is rooted in the 17th amendment: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected to a six year term by the people thereof; and each Senator shall have one vote.” (Prior to this amendment Senators were selected by the state legislatures.) When Senators became subject to the people instead of the states, the balance of power between the states and federal government tipped heavily toward the Federal government.

Since that time, people have increasingly looked to the federal government to solve all of their problems. The politicians were more than willing to take on this responsibility because that gave them more power. Thus the pendulum of power began to swing to the federal government, and it hasn’t stopped yet. What the states legislatures didn’t realize when they ratified the 17th amendment was that once the Senators were elected by the people they would lose their voice on Capitol Hill. Cleon Skousen stated it this way:

“The Founders felt that unless the principle of dual sovereignty was carefully perpetuated, the healthy independence of each would deteriorate and eventually one or the other would become totally dominant. If the federal government would become dominant, it would mean the end of local self-government and the security of the individual. On the other hand, if the states became dominant, the federal government would become so weak that the structure of the nation would begin to fractionalize and disintegrate into smaller units.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 225)

Today people look to the federal government for all kinds of help that, prior to the 17th amendment, they would have addressed to their state leaders. By doing so, they have given more power to the federal government than is constitutional. Now “we the people” are starting to rise up against the oppressions of the federal government that we (speaking of the whole and not of individuals) ourselves caused by appealing to the federal government to provide us with what, according to the Constitution, the states or we ourselves should be providing.

The real danger lies in this, the pendulum of public action has started to swing back in the other direction of “peoples rule” may, because of the weight of it and inertia, carry the country past the balance of power to the opposite extreme of anarchy. Once that happens the country could fracture into the smaller units and we would be in the same predicament that the thirteen original states found themselves under the Articles of Confederation.
Alexander Hamilton emphasized this point when he wrote:

This balance between the national and state governments ought to be dwelt on with particular attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits, by certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them. ((Quoted in Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power [Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1949], pl 218.) (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 225))

One thing that has to be done to ensure the return of balanced government is to work toward a repeal of the 17th amendment which would put the state governments back in balance in the legislature. It would protect the rights of the states, and along with those rights comes the responsibilities that the federal government has taken over. It would then be the responsibility of the people to work with their state governments to provide the political stability and guidance needed to satisfy the needs of the people of that state.

In this lies a word of warning to those of us who are very angry at the Federal Government. It is good for us to let our leaders in Washington know that we are upset with the way they are stealing from our grandchildren and great grandchildren to support their “lifestyle” with pork barrel projects and earmarks. However, we need to make sure that the state governments are willing and ready to stand up to the tasks that will be laid upon them when we finally get the Federal Government to return sovereignty back to the states and to the people. We have to be willing to curb our lifestyles as well, and return to living within our means. That will mean some hardships for many of us that have been accustomed to having someone else take care of our mundane tasks. When we take back our rights to “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” we also take back our responsibilities for attaining them. If we don’t take back those responsibilities, or we think that it is too hard for us to rely upon ourselves, then we will fall back into the hands of the bureaucrats in Washington and our plight will be even worse than it is now under federal government control.