The Right to Govern, June 01, 2004
Since the dawn of history, man has formed associations for mutual benefit and protection. H.G Wells provides an excellent overview of the trends and tendencies of collectivism that carried mankind from tribal existence to the Age of Imperialism. His volume entitled The Outline of History written in 1920 was an attempt to answer the questions relating to how man moved from relatively diverse and independent associations to imperial nation-states that waged war on a global scale. Wells’ work is unique and significant in its treatment of history. Any thinking man that sincerely wishes to understand the nature and purpose of government ought to be familiar with Wells’ outline, dated though it may be. .
We accept readily the necessity for government. The reality of the world we live in is such that without government to restrain the evil around us the individual would be faced with a daily fight for survival. The acceptance of common association in the form of government necessitates that the individual delegate some rights and to the government. In this sense government is a necessary evil.
Free men have always understood the inherently evil nature of government. Governments weld tremendous power over those whom they rule. Invariably all systems of government that are restrained in power solely by the government itself move from liberty to tyranny. Historically this has always been so. When those that control the government establish that the government is superior to the creators and act as the sole judge of the propriety of expanding governmental power tyranny has already begun to take hold.
George Washington described government thusly: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!” The words of several of the other significant figures in our early history mirror the words of Washington. It is apparent that the creation of a new federal government was embarked upon with the greatest of concern for individual liberties, the preservation of the rights of the states and the avoidance of tyranny.
What then is good government? John C. Calhoun stated in Disquisition on Government that:
"The infinite Being, Creator of all, has assigned to man the social and political state, as best not only to impel him into the social state, but to make government necessary for man’s preservation and well being."
This is a principle shared by those that founded the federal government as well as the majority of the thinkers and philosophers of the century preceding that founding. Our own Declaration of Independence speaks of the freedom granted to man by God (the creator to use their word) to establish government. Good government is that which governs least and abides by the documents and agreements that gave it birth.
The framers of the Constitution were very careful to establish limits and checks on the central government. Many today read the Constitution of the United States and see rights and powers delegated to the States and the people. The framers of the Constitution saw the document as rather as a dispensation of very specific and limited powers to the central (federal) government; all other rights, powers and liberties not specifically given to the central government were to remain with the States or the people.
Wherefore does the Government of the United States gain legitimacy to govern? Was the federal government born of popular affirmation? Did it gain sovereignty from the King of England via the terms of peace granting the thirteen colonies independence? In fact the central government was born of and created by the independent thirteen colonies. King George III granted independence to the several colonies as free and independent states. The British crown did not deal with or recognize the central government, only with representatives of the thirteen separate colonies. The question of which political entities had sovereignty and independence first is clear. The can be no legitimate debate on this point.
In forming the central government the states did not relinquish or surrender their inherent sovereignty. Like all associations of sovereign entities since the dawn of time the communal association of free and sovereign states in 1789 was akin to the formation of a club. Its members chartered the club, a set of rules and guidelines was established, and certain rights were delegated to the club in order for it to function. The acts of forming and joining the club in no way diminished the status of the members.
The term “delegated” is key in this assessment of the relationship between the central government and the states. It is impossible for an inferior entity to delegate powers to a superior. In such a case the proper term would be “surrender”. Delegation occurs between a superior to a subordinate or between equals. The words used in the formation of the Union were those of delegation to the central government from the states; not of surrender of powers. It is apparent that the strongest position intended for the Federal government to hold in relation to the States was that of an equal and the weakest possible position that of inferior. Nowhere con it be proven that the Central government was intended to be superior. .
The words used in the Virginia Act of Ratification of the United States Constitution state these points well:
"We, the delegates of the People of Virginia, duly elected….in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution , being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby with them and at their will: that, therefore, no right , of any denomination, can be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified."
It is clear that Virginia as the sovereign agent of the People of Virginia neither surrendered rights or sovereignty in the ratification of the Constitution. Furthermore, at ratification they made it clear that the agreement would survive only contingent upon the continued benefit to the people.
The central government rules by the consent of the people through the sovereign states that gave it birth. Those states gain their sovereignty from their citizens; the people. The right of the Federal government to rule is based on nothing more complicated than that. So long as the government rules by the consent of the people it is moral and legitimate. Whenever the government ceases to abide by the compact that gave it birth or usurps powers not delegated to it there will exist illegitimacy.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
The Calhoun Institute
No comments:
Post a Comment