The Constitution and the Magna Carta

[unixronin]

cipherpunk discusses the differences between the two, and how the government has turned a short and strictly enumerated list of only seventeen things it is allowed by the Constitution to do, all other things being forbidden to it, into "We can do whatever we want".

Comments

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Rather I'm arguing the the converse. I would say the political leadership of the slaveholders "caused" the war, as much as it is possible to speak of a single cause. The weak Federal government, heavily influenced by the slaveholders, could not control the slaveholder faction and the states they dominated. And some of the main reasons the Federal government was weak, and favorable to the slaveholders, were concessions made to the slaveholders. Viewed in that way, there is nothing post hoc--this is all plain in the history, unless I greatly misunderstand it.

The whole history seems to me a compelling argument for either no Union between North and South in the first place, or a stronger Union. Historically, of course, the conflict was violently resolved in favor of a stronger Union. The stronger Union does not seem to be more oppressive than its former weaker form, nor did it abandon the concept of human rights, the constitution, or the rule of law. I simply don't see the history that makes the argument for a weaker Federal government valid.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I simply don't see the history that makes the argument for a weaker Federal government valid.

And that's precisely the problem.

In the words of Gerald R. Ford (yes, that Gerald R. Ford; he was President at the time), "If government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." What he didn't mention was that not only is a government that is big enough to take away everything you have not necessarily big enough to also give you everything you want, but it doesn't necessarily even have any pressing motivation to do so.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

"I dreamt I dwelt in marble halls,/ And woke to find it true;/ I wasn't born for an age like this;/ Was Smith? Was Jones? Were you?"--Orwell, "A Happy Vicar I Might Have Been"

Barry Goldwater, it's said, was fond of repeating that remark of Ford's, in the 1964 campaign during which, yes, he invented the Southern Strategy. At that time, the South was very much resentful of Johnson's laws which ended institutionalized racism. Open racism was no longer nationally acceptable, so they talked about small government and states rights. So the story of the slaveholders continued at that time, and continues to this day.

I would prefer much less large-scale power in our lives. Yet I don't see how we can hope to retain any personal freedoms without a powerful democratic government. Without that government, "we the people" stand no chance at all against the big corporations and the various foreign tyrannies. At least with the US Federal government I get a vote and the benefit of democratic traditions, even if those traditions could be stronger and my vote only makes much difference in one house of Congress.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

As a very late thought on this: it occurs to me it is the banks and financial firms, with the connivance of the government, that have "taken it all away" for many people. Strikingly, "minimal government" arguments were used to justify this.

The regulation of commerce is one of the oldest functions of government. It seems that abandoning it, or corrupting it, is one way the government can take it all away.