Tyranny with Impunity
Someone asked my opinion as to whether a proposed action or mandate by a particular politician was “legal.” This was my reply:
So long as government serves as both the enforcement mechanism and the sole arbiter of propriety, then government can ‘legally’ do anything that it wants to do.
Like any self-interested sovereign or monarch, government is unlikely to find fault in its own actions. However, that does not mean that a proposed action is proper, legitimate, or constitutional. Any unfettered sovereign is certain to succumb to the inevitably corrupting influences of unrestrained power.
In recent times, government at every level has regularly and routinely engaged in actions, which are illegitimate and unconstitutional. The fact that government refuses to restrain itself within the confines of the Constitution and refuses to rein in the rogue actions of political minions, does not justify or legitimize those actions. Actions by the state, which are illegitimate and unconstitutional, are undeserving of the respect or compliance of the people. However, so long as the people submit and surrender to the dictates of government, even if illegitimate, government will continue to subjugate the populace.
Freedom and liberty cannot long exist unless they are actively defended and constantly protected. One must either be prepared to fight for freedom or embrace slavery. There is no tenable middle ground.
It used to be that the first step in any proposed legislation or government act was to ask, “Do we have the (legitimate) authority to pass the legislation or to undertake the act?”
Particularly with regard to the federal government, that government is not sovereign. A “sovereign,” whether represented in a monarchy or other form of government, possesses all power as may be afforded to any state. Monarchs formerly ruled by “divine right” on the belief that their power and authority was descended from the gods. Thus, they answered only to their “god” for their actions, and to the extent that the ruler saw himself as a “god” or “supreme being,” his will and self-interests were paramount. The idea was, “If it is good for the monarch [i.e. government], it must then be good for all.” Unfortunately, we have millennia of consistent and uninterrupted histories to demonstrate the fallacies of that position. We have learned, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Therefore, the government of the United States of America is not sovereign. The state is not omnipotent. It does not possess unlimited power restrained only to the extent that the state by and through government chooses not to exercise its vast power. The federal government has only such legitimate authority as was previously ceded to it consciously, deliberately, and voluntarily by the People and as contained within the text of the Constitution. The United States Constitution was never intended to provide a framework for a government with industrial efficiency. That venerable instrument affords to the federal government only limited and specifically enumerated powers, and those powers necessarily defer to individual liberty and personal freedom through the affirmative restrictions of the Bill of Rights. Ultra vires actions, which are beyond the scope of the Constitution, are illegitimate, and such actions are undeserving of the respect of the People, who represent the only legitimate source of government power and authority. To the extent that government usurps power from the People, it commits an offense against the populous and delegitimizes the state.
Today, the political classes are eager not only to expand the reach and scope of the state well beyond its intended realm, but they are so arrogant as to blatantly ignore the limitations and restrictions of the Constitution. Political minions and technocrats adopt the adage, “The Ends Justify the Means,” they presume that the state has unfettered powers, which they may wield vicariously. However, their Ends are self-serving and their chosen Means are ignoble. Their ignorance is not the result of a lack of “education.” Their professed naivete is unrelated to innocence. Many, who zealously grapple for the reins of power, have been educated well beyond their respective levels of intelligence. Their ignorance is “willful.” The claims that they did not know the wrongness of their acts are disingenuous.
Instead, they unabashedly abuse their power and authority with the expectation that they are unlikely to be punished for their misdeeds. They expect to act with impunity. After all, if the state is expected to police and enforce limitations against itself, who is to assure that the state does its job (and only the jobs specifically assigned to it)?
Politicos crave vicarious power, and they covet the position, prestige, and profit to be derived therefrom. Is it reasonable to expect them to forego that which they desire so intensely? What then is the remedy for a rogue state and a reckless political class? Who is watching the watchers?
The architects of the Constitution understood the immutable relationship between Power and Corruption: As power trends toward absolute, so does the certainty of corruption, and with corruption come abuse, oppression, and tyranny. The Founders understood that government is at best a necessary evil. In order to make government productive, as opposed to destructive, the state must be fettered. Government must be affirmatively restrained and effectively limited.
An all-powerful state is inconsistent with liberty, and an unrestrained government is antithetical to freedom. Either persons and peoples may live free or they are to be made wards of the state and subjects of the political classes. One cannot simultaneously be both Ward and Master, as to government or as to his own life. The People can either take back the reins of government or they can expect government to run roughshod over them.
