Whatever Happened to the American Revolution?
Joseph McHugh
April 16, 2006
The American Revolution was about decreasing the power of government. Live free or die. Individual rights are the credo by which we live in this country. Governments are instituted among men with the sole justification of protecting the people’s natural rights. “The government is best, which governs least.” Sound familiar? These should. They are the traditional precepts we all used to learn about when we studied history and government. Then why do all three branches of our government today seem bent on expanding their power? Today one is hard pressed to find anyone in the mainstream who is calling for a smaller government.
It makes very little difference today whether one listens to a liberal or a conservative. Both sides see a need to increase one or more of the three branches of government, the Legislative, Executive or Judiciary.
Witness the recent debates over Supreme Court nominations. On the one side are the liberals, complaining that conservative judges are overriding Congress’s ability to make laws. They do not see the court as having the ability to review congressional action. In other words, the courts shouldn’t be overseeing the Congress. Indeed, one liberal Senator, during the recent debate over Supreme Court appointee Sam Alito, said that the sole role of the court is to act as a referee, to make sure that the legislative process was handled properly, not to review the constitutionality of laws.
The Constitution, liberals, both in congress and on the courts, argue is a “living document,” that must expand in meaning with time, unbounded by any overriding principles, especially those that refer to natural rights, these special rights that cannot be encroached on by the government. Indeed, to them, the whole issue of “rights” is an expanding concept that can be defined in anyway according to modern sensibilities. In this view the Constitution is seen as only a very vague roadmap. What is the practical result of this view? The courts have been able to create and deny rights at will without any reference to the idea of individual rights, and the legislature, especially the federal government, has been unmolested by any need to worry about trampling on rights. Rights? What is a right yesterday isn’t necessarily a right today. What is a right depends on “modern sensibility.” If the majority wants to vote to dispose of your life, it can. If the Supreme Court decides there’s a new right, however bizarre or contradictory to individual rights, presto it’s there.
While the liberals expand the notion of rights making it plastic and without meaning, conservatives shrink the concept down to almost nothing. To them a reading of the constitution is limited to the exact words written into the text, and that’s it. That’s the Scalia doctrine. Their government credo is not the American idea that the government is not permitted to do anything not expressly granted, but rather the totalitarian idea that anything not expressly forbidden is granted. The government is virtually unchecked in its power. The only power the conservatives want to limit is the Federal Government’s, leaving state governments virtually unchecked in their power. Thus, the supreme Court said that it's perfectly okay for a state government to regulate sodomy inside an individual's house.
And, we have today the two foci of the liberals and conservatives. The liberals want to regulate the individual’s economic life without restriction. And the conservatives want to regulate personal behavior without restriction. And even the conservative’s get into the economic act, arguing that the state legislatures are virtually unlimited in terms of their power over economic issues. (Incidentally, I only separate the two areas for clarity. Economic issues are personal.)
And what of executive power? Recently, Congress passed two major pieces of legislation, one banning torture, and one renewing the Patriot Act. In both cases, the President signed the pieces of legislation, which he didn’t have to do, but he attached to his signature, a “Signing Statement.” A “Signing Statement” is a traditional statement where the President lays out his interpretation of the law he’s signing. The difference is that in these cases Bush used the signing statement to assert that he would bypass provisions of the laws where necessary. In other words the laws applied, but only when he said so. The role of the executive branch has always been to “faithfully execute” the laws, but President Bush apparently believes the role is to “faithfully cherry pick” laws, especially when they regard national security. But that attitude is a complete violation of the separation of powers clearly set forth in the Constitution.
Thus, we have theories today, from all sides, that call for expanded power to the judiciary, legislature, or the executive, all three branches of government.
Whatever happened to the American Revolution?
It makes very little difference today whether one listens to a liberal or a conservative. Both sides see a need to increase one or more of the three branches of government, the Legislative, Executive or Judiciary.
Witness the recent debates over Supreme Court nominations. On the one side are the liberals, complaining that conservative judges are overriding Congress’s ability to make laws. They do not see the court as having the ability to review congressional action. In other words, the courts shouldn’t be overseeing the Congress. Indeed, one liberal Senator, during the recent debate over Supreme Court appointee Sam Alito, said that the sole role of the court is to act as a referee, to make sure that the legislative process was handled properly, not to review the constitutionality of laws.
The Constitution, liberals, both in congress and on the courts, argue is a “living document,” that must expand in meaning with time, unbounded by any overriding principles, especially those that refer to natural rights, these special rights that cannot be encroached on by the government. Indeed, to them, the whole issue of “rights” is an expanding concept that can be defined in anyway according to modern sensibilities. In this view the Constitution is seen as only a very vague roadmap. What is the practical result of this view? The courts have been able to create and deny rights at will without any reference to the idea of individual rights, and the legislature, especially the federal government, has been unmolested by any need to worry about trampling on rights. Rights? What is a right yesterday isn’t necessarily a right today. What is a right depends on “modern sensibility.” If the majority wants to vote to dispose of your life, it can. If the Supreme Court decides there’s a new right, however bizarre or contradictory to individual rights, presto it’s there.
While the liberals expand the notion of rights making it plastic and without meaning, conservatives shrink the concept down to almost nothing. To them a reading of the constitution is limited to the exact words written into the text, and that’s it. That’s the Scalia doctrine. Their government credo is not the American idea that the government is not permitted to do anything not expressly granted, but rather the totalitarian idea that anything not expressly forbidden is granted. The government is virtually unchecked in its power. The only power the conservatives want to limit is the Federal Government’s, leaving state governments virtually unchecked in their power. Thus, the supreme Court said that it's perfectly okay for a state government to regulate sodomy inside an individual's house.
And, we have today the two foci of the liberals and conservatives. The liberals want to regulate the individual’s economic life without restriction. And the conservatives want to regulate personal behavior without restriction. And even the conservative’s get into the economic act, arguing that the state legislatures are virtually unlimited in terms of their power over economic issues. (Incidentally, I only separate the two areas for clarity. Economic issues are personal.)
And what of executive power? Recently, Congress passed two major pieces of legislation, one banning torture, and one renewing the Patriot Act. In both cases, the President signed the pieces of legislation, which he didn’t have to do, but he attached to his signature, a “Signing Statement.” A “Signing Statement” is a traditional statement where the President lays out his interpretation of the law he’s signing. The difference is that in these cases Bush used the signing statement to assert that he would bypass provisions of the laws where necessary. In other words the laws applied, but only when he said so. The role of the executive branch has always been to “faithfully execute” the laws, but President Bush apparently believes the role is to “faithfully cherry pick” laws, especially when they regard national security. But that attitude is a complete violation of the separation of powers clearly set forth in the Constitution.
Thus, we have theories today, from all sides, that call for expanded power to the judiciary, legislature, or the executive, all three branches of government.
Whatever happened to the American Revolution?
Print
Email
