It could well be, that in times like we are living in, it could be profitable to look at how we got to this point. With respect to the US Government, the adoption of the US Constitution was not seen as a universally good thing. There was significant opposition.
After seeing this link in the Free Republic, my eyes fastened upon this paper written back at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. There was indeed a civil war. But why? Because of the outcome of a Presidential Election that wasn't accepted by a significant portion of the country. Was that not so? It was indeed the reason given for the secession of the Southern states at that time, and thus must be so. Yet today, most people focus on the slavery issue, but it was Lincoln's election that was the catalyst for the secession. It was Lincoln's conduct that assured that there would be a war, as Lincoln could have allowed the Southern states to leave peacefully--- but he did not.
The presidency under the Constitution is too powerful. There is simply too much at stake for one person to have so much power. Therefore, the presidency should be weakened, so that the temptation to increase the powers of the state won't become too strong, and that the country won't fall into despotism. If by opposing despotism creates the conditions for a civil war, that potential outcome can be avoided.
The Constitution as it constructed, seemed to allow at least for some policing to occur that would prevent despotism. Yet, these safeguards are falling away. There is no real check and balances anymore. It is as if there is some conspiracy amongst the politicians, in and out of power, to continue increasing the power of the government at the expense of liberty. That wasn't the original intent of the framers. However, original intent, though it often being cited, seems rarely enforced. Meanwhile, the government just grows and grows---and nothing much gets done about it.
The only thing that could stop the federal government now is an Article V convention. Yet those who want a smaller, less intrusive government, seem too timid to try it. At this point, it would seem that there's little choice. You may get a good president, but the bad ones seem more troublesome, and it is getting worse.
Elections won't fix a systemic problem like this. It seems that the Anti-Federalists may have had a point. Better a weak government that preserves liberty than a strong government that destroys it. Those people who want a strong president run the risk of a future tyrant getting into power. They cannot lay claim on being for small government if they insist upon having a strong presidency. These two things don't go together.
If a war develops over an Article V, it was going to happen anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment