Keeping government close to the people is a cornerstone of our American society. Ensuring that the vast majority of power remains and is retained at the state and local level is essential in protecting the rights of the states and of the people. Decentralization of governmental power is critical and must be protected from the abuse, usurpation, and encroachment from unconstitutional mandates from the federal government.
The increasing consolidation of power in the federal government at the expense of the states is leading to a fundamental loss of our liberties and is undermining the sovereignty of the states as free and independent bodies politic within the American Union.
Providing accountability to and enforcement of our state and federal constitutions, by law, will help protect the states, and the people, from the centralizing of power in our ever growing federal government. Sovereignty amendments in every state of the Union offer the best defense against the centralization of government at the federal level. The people must remember and understand how our system of law and government was established. And, if they truly believe in and support our state and federal constitutions, they must defend the principles, pertaining to the separation of powers between state and federal government, that make our system of government one of the best ever devised by men.
In support of decentralization, we also propose limiting the number of days that Congress may convene.
“No Man’s Life Liberty or Property is Safe…While the Legislature is in Session”
- Judge Gideon Tucker, formerly of the New York legislature
“…representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents.”
- Rhode Island’s Roger Sherman during the Constitutional Convention of 1787
Limiting the duration of congressional sessions puts limits on legislation, reduces the amount of unnecessary and unwanted laws, and allows more time with constituents. Less time in session would provide lawmakers more time to research proposed legislation and its impact, resulting in better integrity in the law-making process. Utilizing reliable internet teleconferencing technologies from their home states for some sessions may save money (by reducing administrative and travel costs) and enhance interaction between members and with their constituents. Doing so would also ensure the continuity of government in the event of an attack on Washington D.C.
The founders of the U.S. Constitution envisioned that the federal government would serve the states, focusing its duties and responsibilities that affect the states, collectively, on matters pertaining primarily of interstate and international concern, such as war, commerce, controversies between states, and so forth. The federal government was never intended to regulate the people, directly, on matters of a domestic nature. Such matters were reserved to the states, as delegated to them by their respective Citizens. However, over the past 150 years, the federal government has transformed itself, in effect, through an ever-increasing expansion of powers acquired through usurpation and coercion over the powers of the states. In many instances, this is accomplished by promising financial support to various state programs. In addition, state and federal governments have taken on and acted in a private capacity as corporate entities equivalent to that of a business corporation for profit, as evidenced in various U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as that in the Clearfield Doctrine. This capacity conflicts, greatly, with government’s public duties and responsibilities and opens the door for corruption and abuse. This capacity is not authorized in any constitution, and as such, could be construed as a seditious act against the American people by deception and misinformation. We, the People, must restore our constitutional system of government, as originally intended. This platform provides some ideas that could lead to such a recovery.
By the way, when we speak of government in this regard, we do not mean government, per se, rather we mean that those who have been chosen by the people to serve in public office have failed to maintain the honor and integrity of our American system of government, resulting in many deviations from the constitutions and injuries against the people. We believe our system of government to be quite satisfactory, but certain improvements, recognized from 200 years of observation and experience and implemented with great caution, could provide more stability to ensure that government maintains its constitutional integrity.
The following has been excerpted from a Resource:
Resource: Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem by Jay W. Richards, Copyright 2009, pages 49-51.
Circles of Responsibility
The problem isn’t that government workers are stupid or uncaring. The problem is all about information and incentives. A centralized government knows less about individual problems than does practically anyone closer to the problem. Replacing a family or a neighborhood or a local church with a federal program for helping the down-and-out is like trying to have an official in the Department of Commerce guess how much I should pay, right now, for a new pair of size-9 Asics running shoes. At the moment, I wouldn’t pay much, since I just bought a pair. And I’m picky when it comes to colors. That, and I don’t wear size 9! The official could look up the market price for Asics shoes in the United States. (It’s between $60 and $140.) That’s crucial information. He probably wouldn’t know much else, though so he’d just have to guess, and he’d probably guess wrong, and waste his time and mine in the process. That’s the information gap in a nutshell. It’s impossible to fix a problem if you don’t know squat about it.
Think of responsibility as a cluster of overlapping circles or jurisdictions. The person or group with the narrowest jurisdiction has the most detailed knowledge and the most responsibility. The narrowest jurisdiction is the responsibility I have for myself. I know a lot more about what I need and when I need it than anybody else does. I know when I’m hungry, thirsty, and sleepy. I know when to breathe and blink. I know what I’m allergic to, what medicines I need to take and when. I know how to get to work, how to do my job, how to avoid that grumpy guy at the Northwest Airlines ticketing counter who doesn’t like me. I know the names of my family, and on and on. I have privileged access to this information. Therefore, unless something bad happens, my responsibility for all these things should match the extent of my knowledge. I shouldn’t expect someone else to handle all these details, since they don’t know much about them.
If the mayor of Grand Rapids, Michigan, where I now live, suddenly had to assume responsibility for feeding me, giving me my medicine, and telling me when to breathe, he’d botch it, and I’d probably be dead, even if he’s a member of Mensa and has a saintly disposition. And if he took over these responsibilities for years (assuming I lived), I might eventually forget how to do these things myself.
Of course, none of us is Robinson Crusoe; sometimes we need help. Parents take care of their children for years before those children can take care of themselves. Two-year-old Maria Gonzalez from Quana, Texas, isn’t responsible for herself. Her parents are. That’s the narrowest jurisdiction. It’s only when parents are abusive, incompetent, or absent that other family members need to get involved. If no other family or neighbors are around, a church or nonprofit should step in. If that doesn’t happen, the city or state government might have to step in. The federal government should be the last resort, because the more levels up the responsibility moves, the more Maria will have to be treated like a generic toddler: the more distant the jurisdiction, the less knowledge of the specific toddler. It doesn’t matter how sweet employees at the Department of Health and Human Services are. They can’t possibly know more about Maria’s particular needs—her peanut allergy, her lack of sleep because of the barking Rotweiler next door—than can someone closer to the situation.
This is the problem with welfare dispensed by the federal government: it runs roughshod over this intricate web of overlapping responsibilities and assumes knowledge where none exists. When the federal government jumps in and ignores this intricate web, it violates the principle of subsidiarity. That’s a fancy word for a simple idea. Here’s how Pope Pius XI explained the principle:
Just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to a group what private initiative and effort can accomplish, so too it is an injustice for a larger and higher association to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower associations. This is a fundamental principle. In its very nature the true aim of all social activity should be to help members of a social body, and never to destroy or absorb them.
When the state takes over a task that is better handled by someone closer to the problem, it transgresses its proper boundaries and creates more problems than it set out to solve.
For the last forty years, we’ve reflexively looked to government to solve every problem, especially social problems. Child care, children’s health insurance, rapid response to hurricane damage, homelessness, drug abuse—you name it, and somebody in Washington, D.C., is supposed to take care of it. Christian leaders have mostly gone along with this way of thinking.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments