The Tie that Binds
I am sure that E.J. Dionne nearly gagged when he wrote the first sentence below, but he quickly collected himself and proceeded to regurgitate his “progressive” drivel:
It’s true that our system of federalism encourages useful experiments state-to-state that can pioneer new ways of solving problems. But the increasingly radical divergences threaten national cohesion and coherent policymaking on climate, covid and health care, and more. Neither the coronavirus nor the atmosphere recognizes state boundaries. Our ability to govern ourselves depends on facing up to the consequences of what is fast becoming an unsustainable approach to states’ rights.
To Donne and others, such experiments are useful only if they yield results which are consistent with the desires and expectations of a “democratic” majority — are consistent with the accepted dogma and approved narrative. Dionne opens his piece touting Obamacare, but only the judicial contortionism of Chief Justice Roberts saved what otherwise would be recognized as an unconstitutional federal overstep. Our federal government is not sovereign. It has only such legitimate authority as is contained within the text of the Constitution, and government power exists only to the extent that it has been voluntarily ceded by the people. I challenge Dionne to point to the specific provision of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to usurp control over roughly one-fifth (1/5) of national GDP and to interfere in decisions as intimate and personal as one’s relationship with doctors and medical providers.
Dionne continues alleging that “radical divergences threaten national cohesion and coherent policy making.” Do you know what policies are “radically divergent”? Individuality and Independence. Do you know what are fundamental impediments to the conformity and submission, which are necessary to make the “coherent policies” of Central Planning effective? Individual liberties and personal freedoms.
In contrast to the absence of Constitutional authority for Obamacare and a plethora of other federal laws and regulations, the first 10 Constitutional Amendments, as contained in the Bill of Rights, enshrine inalienable rights, individual liberties, and personal freedoms.
These include the 9th and 10th Amendments:
Amendment IX — The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X — The powers 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.
“States’ rights” are not a recent creation. They do not represent a “radical divergence” from the Constitution. Those rights are fundamental to the Constitution itself. In fact, they are as fundamental as the rights, liberties, and freedoms, which are acknowledged to belong to all citizens. In the absence of such immutable rights, the government (i.e. collective) is free to limit or to withdraw those “rights,” and in their place, the state doles out privileges conditioned upon conformity to the wishes, will, and whims of the collective and further conditioned upon compliance with government fiats and with the self-serving dictates of political minions and technocrats.
There are “consequences” when there is a “radical divergence” from the limitations and protections of the Constitution. Dionne has as unfounded faith in an electoral majority “governing ourselves.” Of course, Dionne’s expectation is that the controlling majority would be populated by those of his ilk, but what of any disfavored minority (including one of relatively equal size and power)?
The Constitution does not provide a blueprint for an industrially-efficient state. Instead, it provides an outline for a government of limited and enumerated powers, which necessarily defers to individual liberty and personal freedom. The word “democracy” does not appear a single time in the Constitution in any derivation. Tyranny in all forms is damnable, and it matters little whether tyranny comes at the hands of a single deranged despot or at the behest of a self-serving electoral majority. The Constitution, as further limited by the Bill of Rights, represents an impediment to those, who have a misplaced faith in “democracy,” as a panacea for all societal ills.
Each person (and any voluntary association of individuals) is generally free to self-govern without resorting to state action. Persons and parties use government not to govern themselves, but to govern others. Government sanction provides an air of legitimacy and a sense of superiority; however, in most cases, state action is a power play pure and simple. Government is used by an electoral majority (or controlling voting bloc) to impose its self-serving will upon a reluctant minority (or other disfavored group.)
As power trends toward absolute so does the certainty for corruption, and with corruption comes abuse, oppression, and tyranny. It is the Constitution, which places limitations upon government so as not to interfere unnecessarily with liberty and freedom, even a “democratic” government acting at the behest of an electoral majority. We ignore those limitations and abandon those protections at our peril.
