Spare_change
Gold Member
- Jun 27, 2011
- 8,690
- 1,293
- 280
I recently sat thru a discussion about where the Constitution of the United States came from. In that discussion, there were some revelations (at least, to me) that amazed me and caused me to rethink the answers to some of today’s questions.
Prior to the Constitution, there was the Declaration of Independence. Most of us know the preamble, but I strongly suspect most of us have never read it in its entirety.
One of today’s issues is whether the Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian values, or not. But, once you actually read – and study – the Declaration, the argument truly becomes moot. The Declaration refers to God three different times (keep that number in mind). It variously calls Him “the Creator”, the “Divine Providence”, and the “Supreme Judge of the world”.
Further, it says that all power is concentrated in God. Then, it goes on to refute the power of the king by saying that, only in God, can all power be aggregated. The “Creator” makes the laws of nature, the “Divine Providence” administers the laws of nature, and the “Supreme Judge” adjudicates compliance with the laws of nature.
The Declaration then discusses that all power must be separated, that to allow all power to aggregate in a single person or group would be rife with corruption and self-absorption, and the people – who are all created equal – would be subservient to that covenant of power. Obviously, this refers to the King, who not only made the rules, determined how they were applied, but also judged compliance.
So, they took it a step further in the Constitution. Article 1 defines what Congress (the creator of laws) can, and cannot do. Article 2 refers to the executive branch (the administrator), and Article 3 restricts the judiciary (the adjudicator). It is this natural separation of powers that ensures that the people control their government. After all, the Declaration says, the government may govern ONLY with the consent of the governed.
However – and here comes the twist – our government today has created a fourth branch. Congress has abdicated much of their lawmaking responsibility to the agencies of the government – the EPA, for example, of the Department of Health, or the Food and Drug Administration. Congress has passed feel-good laws like “we want clean air”, and left it to the agencies to determine what that means (the creator of the rules), enforcement of those rules (thru inspectors and monitors, even to the point that some agencies now have armed troops at their disposal), and the adjudicator of the failure for non-compliance (either thru fines, prison sentences, or seizure).
Thus, our use of agencies has aggregated the powers of all of the government – without the separation necessary for control and monitoring. So, the very thing the Founding Fathers created the Constitution to avoid – the concentration of power and control in a single entity – has come to pass.
Is this what we intended? Is this what we want?
Prior to the Constitution, there was the Declaration of Independence. Most of us know the preamble, but I strongly suspect most of us have never read it in its entirety.
One of today’s issues is whether the Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian values, or not. But, once you actually read – and study – the Declaration, the argument truly becomes moot. The Declaration refers to God three different times (keep that number in mind). It variously calls Him “the Creator”, the “Divine Providence”, and the “Supreme Judge of the world”.
Further, it says that all power is concentrated in God. Then, it goes on to refute the power of the king by saying that, only in God, can all power be aggregated. The “Creator” makes the laws of nature, the “Divine Providence” administers the laws of nature, and the “Supreme Judge” adjudicates compliance with the laws of nature.
The Declaration then discusses that all power must be separated, that to allow all power to aggregate in a single person or group would be rife with corruption and self-absorption, and the people – who are all created equal – would be subservient to that covenant of power. Obviously, this refers to the King, who not only made the rules, determined how they were applied, but also judged compliance.
So, they took it a step further in the Constitution. Article 1 defines what Congress (the creator of laws) can, and cannot do. Article 2 refers to the executive branch (the administrator), and Article 3 restricts the judiciary (the adjudicator). It is this natural separation of powers that ensures that the people control their government. After all, the Declaration says, the government may govern ONLY with the consent of the governed.
However – and here comes the twist – our government today has created a fourth branch. Congress has abdicated much of their lawmaking responsibility to the agencies of the government – the EPA, for example, of the Department of Health, or the Food and Drug Administration. Congress has passed feel-good laws like “we want clean air”, and left it to the agencies to determine what that means (the creator of the rules), enforcement of those rules (thru inspectors and monitors, even to the point that some agencies now have armed troops at their disposal), and the adjudicator of the failure for non-compliance (either thru fines, prison sentences, or seizure).
Thus, our use of agencies has aggregated the powers of all of the government – without the separation necessary for control and monitoring. So, the very thing the Founding Fathers created the Constitution to avoid – the concentration of power and control in a single entity – has come to pass.
Is this what we intended? Is this what we want?
