The Dueling Definitions of “Limited Government” Part 2
Part 2 of a Series on Freedom
As illustrated in the previous article, many Americans have exchanged the concept of limited government for limitless government. Elected officials brandish a simple 3-step pattern of: 1) tell the people what they want to hear; 2) get elected by the people; and 3) ignore the people and provide yourself with cover,
for your re-election, by placating public frustration with clever spin-doctoring. We could call it “…of the people, by the people, and FOR THE…CONGRESSMAN.” Indeed, many lack critical thinking skills when it comes to the virtuous principle of limited government, and our elected officials know it very well. As a result, there is an undeniable disparity between what the American people WANT and what Congress actually DOES on any given day. Both sides of the constituencies SHOULD be furious, but so long as a considerable demographic remains indifferent, the circus in Congress will continue.
Limited government has four basic elements.[i] They are: 1) Constitutional procedural law that requires elected officials to comply with DUE PROCESS while on the floor of a legislature. 2) Constitutional law that restricts elected officials by requiring the DIRECT CONSENT of the people BEFORE a constitution can be changed. 3) A “BILL OF LIMITS” (commonly called a Bill of Rights) that provides clear, up-front prohibitions against certain immoral acts other governments of history have previously committed against liberty. 4) The recognition that some laws WERE NOT made by men, so much as they were DISCOVERED by them; therefore, such laws must be exempted from any voting, the will of the people, the will of the officials, or any other democratic process. This limitation is called “Divine Law” or “natural law.”
For example, the law of gravity, the laws of mathematics, the laws of physics, the law of procreation (making babies), would all be examples of the ultimate LIMITS upon all world governments. [To all those liberal lemmings out there that are now screaming obscenities after having read the word “Divine”, consider trying this: Lobby your elected officials to outlaw gravity. If they refuse, you can always depend on the Iowa Supreme Court as an alternative. Then celebrate your political victory by jumping off the nearest building.] I believe I’ve made my point about natural law very clear, don’t you?
In the light of the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are GOVERNMENT-LIMITING documents, I have some important rhetorical questions for your consideration: Where does the Constitution specifically authorize Congress to grab the power of any industry? Where does the Constitution specifically authorize the Supreme Court to trump the unalienable (God-given) right of private-property ownership? When and where did the Constitution specifically authorize the President to seize control of the banking industry, or auto manufacturing? When and where did the Constitution authorize Congress to limit the free-speech of American pastors in their God-given pulpits or the judiciary to order the arrest of investigative reporters who protected the anonymity of their informants? When and where did the Constitution authorize either Congress or the current president to take over the free-market health-care system, setting itself up as the all-powerful Pharaoh of Medicine? How about a State Supreme Court that decreed gay “marriage” in Iowa? What part of the founders’ concept of LIMITED GOVERNMENT, as expressed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, do ANY of these acts demonstrate?
Allow me to answer those questions for you: It doesn’t, it didn’t, and it NEVER will! Much of what Congress (and the judiciary) does these days is a usurpation of constitutional authority and an egregious insult to our collective intelligence. Here’s a fact: To the people on the left, the Constitution is a maddening obstacle. It is an annoyance that must be undermined effectively, if they are going to succeed. The political reality they face is that undermining the Constitution must be done gradually and with great care, without alarming too great a ratio of the population at any one particular time. So when the left knows it must brazenly usurp Constitutional limits, they can’t just come out and say, “Look, this Constitution is an outdated anchor! It’s holding back societal evolution and progress!” No, that would be too obvious! Instead, they say smarmy things like, “The WISE and WONDERFUL founders of America intended for the Constitution to evooooooolve with society… We owe them a debt of gratitude for making the judiciary the “final word” on what the document means for us today.”
It’s a revisionist lie! The founders certainly DID NOT EVER INTEND for the Judiciary (weakest of the three branches, by design) to be the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation! Chief of all questions…are you ready for this one? WHY DO WE LET THEM get away with it? You know what, the answer is so obvious, and so unflattering, I’ll refrain from writing it. Instead, I’ll let you answer it quietly, in the privacy of your own mind and heart. (Shhhhhh…be careful not to say it too loud – the government might be listening!)
[i] Donald S. Lutz, Origins of American Constitutionalism, Louisiana State University Press, 1988, page 15.
