Tuesday, April 28, 2020

what's best

We live in a Republic. That is the form of government our forefathers fought for and what was established. A republic places the power in the hands of the people, having elected representatives and an elected president. Madison, Jefferson and Jay were the authors of the federalist papers. They didn't always agree with each other but presented arguments in support of ratifying the constitution. What they all shared in common was the fear of a too strong central government. The biggest disagreement among those individuals was the necessity for a Bill of Rights. Hamilton opposed the Bill of Rights fearing it would limit the rights of the people. In short his opposition was, if you made a list of rights, you would then be limited to those rights! Jay having the opposite view argued your rights should be delineated. But the premise was and is, a limited central government. The power is to remain with the people, in their representatives, not in a strong central government. Congress is the governing body. The executive and judicial branches serve as a balance of power, with their respective functions.
 At this time, as the nation deals with this virus it has become increasingly evident to me that many people just don't understand the process of government. This is a Republic. We fought a civil war over, among other reasons, the right of the federal government to exert power over the individual states. Yes, it was partially about federal authority over state authority. The tenth amendment to the constitution expressly states that. It reads, " The power 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. " Clearly the intent here is that the states shall legislate and control their respective states within the guidelines of the Constitution, not a central government. The governor of each state acts almost as the president of that state. The governor is responsible to the people of their states for the administration of that state! That means, it is not the function of the" government " to bail out each state. Also the reason you hear the term, federal guidelines being used in regard to the virus. The federal government does not have the authority to impose restrictions upon the individual states outside of the powers granted to that government by the constitution.
 What I see are many wanting to play both sides of that fence. You can't have it both ways. Consider this legalization of Marijuana. Many states have chosen to " legalize " the use of pot in contradiction to federal law. The supremacy clause states the federal government is the ultimate authority. The feds retain that right of prosecution. Why is it allowed? States rights is the reasoning. The argument harkens back to the beginning of the Republic itself. The federal government does not have the authority over the individual states in regards to such legislation. Slavery, which of course was the main impetus for the civil war. was regarded in the same fashion. You can't on one hand demand the federal government provide you with everything you ask for, while telling that same authority you can't legislate my actions. The federal government does not have the legal authority to order all citizens to do anything! That is what a Republic is all about.
 The original thirteen colonies that declared their independence from English rule, thought of themselves as independent states. That is to say, independent governments. They did recognize the necessity to come together for practical reasons. Economic considerations led that. Plus, you can't wage a war without an army. An army requires a general. Yes, a centralized authority is required to coordinate the efforts of an army. Thirteen individual armies would quickly be defeated against the might of the British empire. That is why the Articles of Confederation were written, signed and ratified. Article two of that confederation says, " each state retains its' sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in congress assembled. " It's s subtle thing that goes unnoticed a great deal of the time but when the founders, and others refer to the United States, what are they referring too? The individual states! In congress assembled forms the Republic.
 Now if you are one that proposes a strong centralized government, a Republic isn't for you. You are talking about socialism, communism, a monarchy, or a dictatorship. You are advocating placing  ultimate power in one central entity. Whether that is an individual person or a body of individuals, they are unchecked. Even when you get to vote for that person or body of people, you are voting for unchecked authority. In our Republic we even have a check on the voting process, making that process as fair as possible. We call it the electoral college and it is a foundation to the Republic.  What currently amazes me the most is those individuals that want the removal of the president are now the ones screaming for a stronger central government. Yes, it is an amazing thing. Not my President, where's my check? Trump is not a dictator but the federal government should make all the rules! The individual states are not responsible for having the proper supplies and preparation for unseen pandemics, the government should have been ready. No, states can pass any legislation they like as long as it profits them, the federal government has no right to intervene. The federal government should however provide funds, supplies, and personnel anytime a state requires that. The states are like teenagers, independent until they get in trouble then home to mommy. Nope, it isn't supposed to work like that. And that brings me back to the beginning. Seems to me a whole of folks just don't understand how a republic functions at all. Perhaps the government should mandate civics classes for every citizen before they can vote! Voting isn't supposed to be for what you want, it is supposed to be for what is best for the whole. 

No comments:

Post a Comment