At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1789, as Benjamin Franklin was emerging from the modest structure we now call Independence Hall, a man apparently approached Franklin and asked him ‘Well, Dr. Franklin, what have you given us, a republic or a tyranny?’ Franklin, supposedly responded ‘a republic – if you can keep it.’ The implication is clear – a representative republic is much easier to squander than it is to establish. If you look at The Federalist Papers you will become aware that the founding fathers were keenly aware of the failed republics of the past. I think I’ve come up with a major reason why America is in the state that it is currently in, guided by an overly large, inefficient, even corrupt federal government. I want to connect two statements to illustrate my point, one made over 200 years ago by our 2nd president, John Adams, and the other made not even a year ago by a high-ranking authority in my church, Elder D. Todd Christofferson. One disclaimer though, I don’t want anybody to believe, or think that I believe, that Elder Christofferson’s remark is aimed at the current administration. I think he was making a broad statement about human society in general, but the comment is especially relevant to America’s current direction. So here are the quotes:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
“…self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to main-
tain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control
by individuals breeds external control by governments."
"Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions, and moral
values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police
and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense
for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate
behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we have become."
"More and stronger regulations may dissuade some from unprincipled
conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circum-
vention. Their could never be enough rules so finely crafted to
anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, en-
forcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This
approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone. We would not
accept the yoke of Christ so we must now tremble under the yoke
of Caesar." - D. Todd Christofferson
Is there any better explanation for where we are right now in this country? What did John Adams mean when he said that our Constitution is only good for a religious/moral people? Well, take a look at the US Constitution, at just over 4000 words long it is only 2.5% the length of the EU constitution. It was purposely devised to greatly limit the power and scope of federal government. There is great wisdom there. I think our system of government (as it was intended, not as it has been administered over the last 15 years)is the greatest form of government to ensure individual success and liberty. However, the founders took a great risk because a nation whose government has only minimal influence over its citizens depends almost entirely upon its people to govern themselves. Unless we will be governed internally by the age-old principles of loyalty, honesty, charity, kindness, obedience, trustworthiness, and reverence we will be compelled by external forces.
Whereas a limited government, with all its accompanying personal liberties, is the natural result of a society which is restrained by these principles, a bloated, inefficient government and one that threatens the free exercise of agency is the natural result of a people who refuse to control themselves.
I’m not advocating that we strip the government of any semblance of strength. The authors of The Federalist Papers were also clear on the need for a strong central government. Strong, but limited. After all, from efficiency comes strength and efficiency does not stem from an overly large and complex governmental structure. The health care law alone will establish over 100 new federal boards and commissions. Do you really think this is going to make health care more efficient (ie - cost-effective) than what we have now? I guarantee it won’t. But I digress.
Government does not like to give up its newly acquired powers. While the vocal protests against the Patriot Act have quieted down, those who opposed it have now risen to power in government and rather than rolling it back or repealing it entirely, it has been expanded. You see, they grow fond of the control now that it is in THEIR hands. No, government will rarely relinquish the sweet morsels of liberty that it manages to extract from its citizens. We must be careful not to forfeit our powers into the hands of government for we will never have them returned. A society that is too comfortable giving up its liberties is ripe for the picking because it takes just one overly ambitious leader to use those powers for evil. We must be ever vigilant. Vigilant against a government that craves influence and vigilant against our own tendencies away from the principles I listed above. If not, we end up being governed by compulsion because that is all we are fit for.
So can we keep it? This republic that is so fragile? Of course we can because, at its core, America is a good country. A just country. A merciful country, civil and decent; aware of the need for self-control and self-responsibility. We were founded on thrift, humility, modesty (if we could just recapture those last two I think we would be okay). These are the principles that lead a people to liberty and they are the principles that will help us recapture our country. The answer is us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's late and I'm tired, and I haven't read the whole post, so here are just two quick comments...
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, just because the Constitution is only 2.5 percent of the EU version doesn't have anything to do with its aim of limiting government (or not). Actually, I think, if anything, it would prove some of your quotes - that it's designed for moral people. Someone who's moral doesn't need every little thing spelled out. They can apply good reason and principle and figure out how to go forward with the limited guidance given. I think the quotes you used are probably very accurately describing issues most countries are dealing with. And they explain what happens (maybe even rightly so) now: trying to contain immoral behaviors with laws. I'm not saying it's an ideal, but I also don't see it as the great 'Satan'. When people become/are wicked to a certain point, a society has to do something to maintain order. But, as Elder Christofferson pointed out, the laws can"t fix the root of the problem, only people themselves can.
The other thought I had was actually something on the previous post. I think character is key, and I'd always prefer a man of values over someone who doesn't have good values (which is the main reason why I would have voted for Obama over McCain if I could have voted, perceiving Obama as the one with clearly more good values...). However, I also find it dangerous to equate an affair with a) lack of values and b) inability to make quality political decisions. If a man is corrupt/wicked in his heart then I agree that those things will influence everything else. But, just because someone had an affair doesn't mean he is corrupt/evil/without value/a bad policy maker. If that were the case, well...we wouldn't have any stake presidents, bishops, members, politicians or anyone leading anyone for that matter. No one is perfect, and unfortunately even among most Christians it's common to have premarital sex and even affairs. That doesn't mean it's right, or that the offenders believe it's right. But it happens. I find it hypocritical in a way that a nation gets sooo outraged over their president having an affair when the average Christian citizen is no better. I think the only reason people get mad is because politicians are the face of the nation in a way, so when a politician doesn't live up to all the values a nation thinks are good and true, then the people are p****. I can understand that, but I also find it extremely unrealistic to think that a politicians is more able or likely to live standards we don't live ourselves. They're no different than us. So, I think as long as a politician isn't proud/happy/indifferent to his own immoral behavior, and it's not apparent that immoral behavior is a common threat in their lives, I think we need to be careful with our judgements. It's easy to think highly of people who's transgressions we never hear about, and badly about someone who's every word/step/action is being scrutinized/analyzed/captured on camera etc.
I am quite surprised that Christofferson would say that it is the lack of control on the public's part that makes governments try to assert control over them. I am actually angry that this is coming from a GA. Governments the world over, ours included, assert control regardless of the behavior of the people. Christofferson obviously has too high an opinion of government.
ReplyDeleteHis words make it sound like government is acting out of a sincere interest in seeing its people florish. "Oh! The kids are misbehaving again. We better crack down on them a bit to get them back on the right track." That's ridiculous!
I don't think it's ridiculous. Government in the western world are just people we elect. Some may be more power-driven than others, but I don't think there is much that sets your average western politician apart from your average western citizen. And as with most average western people, most of them have good intentions. I believe Elder Christofferson's got it right.
ReplyDeleteI thought alot about what Elder Christofferson said as I was writing this post. I don't think he would agree that government is always the loving parent simply trying to help the citizenry. They may view themselves that way but that's not always reality. And it certainly isn't true that the people always get the government they deserve. Only a fool would believe that Germans or Italians in the 1930s were so wicked that they deserved Hitler and Mussolini. There is such a thing as government exercising too much power over a people that are generally righteous or that have ardently resisted, to no avail, that amount of government. So my post is a bit of an oversimplification. That's why I like the comments - it gives me a chance to clarify and get more specific.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I really like what Elder Christofferson says because we rarely hear a correlation being made between the goodness of the people and the goodness of government. At least outside of church that is. But it's not always so simple. We do see instances of people hiding who they truly are so that they can get elected. Certainly Hitler wouldn't have been elected if he had a history of killing Jews. I'm sure there were lots of Germans who were dumbfounded when they found out what Hitler really was. So the size and direction of today's US government isn't entirely the fault of wayward citizens. You don't always know who you're really electing. That's why you've got to keep government controls stringently restricted because you never know if you're really electing a nut case who wants to use those powers for evil. I mean right now I think government has too much control. And under Bush, although some bad things happened, it didn't cause our utter destruction. Under Obama it probably won't completely destroy us either. But who knows who the next guy is? And how he'll use those executive privileges.
I particularly love the stance that our religion takes toward the Constitution. We are the only people (religion) who recognize that this country was founded by inspired men. Actually, The Smithsonian had a display for a year during the sesquicentennial of the Constitution, about how the Mormons held the United States Constitution in religious terms. Many of our prophets have spoken about our belief in this.
ReplyDeleteTroy, I agree whole heartily with what you have written. This country was founded in such a unique way and for a unique purpose. Less than 33 years from the Ratifying of the Constitution, Joseph Smith had his first vision. The restoration of the gospel couldn’t have happened in any other country. It almost didn’t survive the mobs here.
Unfortunately past generations have sat idly by and watched as unethical men have twisted our precious form of government into something awful. And yet we still stand.
However, if we continue to let our God-given form of government be destroyed we will only have ourselves to blame. The silent majority must begin to voice their feelings.
But that will not be enough. The prophets have spoken of how true change will not occur by electing a few good men. It will come when we as a people (nation) shake off the evil that we have let, seep into our culture. It will begin in the homes, when fathers and mothers teach their children correct principals and rear their children in righteousness according to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The problem as it stands today is that there are far too few leaders who were raised in righteousness. They have embraced evil and continue to legislate more of it into our national laws. They have transformed right and wrong into decision and choice.
Fran, as to your comment. I absolutely must disagree with the following statement.
ReplyDelete"But, just because someone had an affair doesn't mean he is corrupt/evil/without value/a bad policy maker. If that were the case, well...we wouldn't have any stake presidents, bishops, members, politicians or anyone leading anyone for that matter. No one is perfect, and unfortunately even among most Christians it's common to have premarital sex and even affairs. That doesn't mean it's right, or that the offenders believe it's right. But it happens."
Nobody is perfect; that is true. But within the church I would guess that there are very few, IF ANY, Bishops or Stake Presidents or General Authorities who have committed the gross crime of an affair. If there are any it is the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, I believe that the majority of the members of the church lead, for the most part, good lives. I doubt that a very large percentage of the general population has committed any heinous sin. Have leaders committed terrible sin? Yes, but it is VERY rare.
I will argue that a man, or woman, who engages in an affair, is corrupt. To get to the point where one can knowingly break commandments, covenants, and family trust he/she must already be, to a degree, lost. That degree can vary. But a person who is studiously living the commandments would never suddenly cheat. I would argue that a person must first decline in righteousness to the point that the Spirit can no longer influence them for right.
Can that person repent? Can that person then become a bright and effective and righteous person? ABSOLUTELY. Once he/she has applied him/herself to the miraculous process of repentance. Then it is as if it never was.
Now, can that person, who has not repented, or is in the process of repentance, still hold value? Yes. Absolutely, but as we sin we separate ourselves from God. And the further the separation the less value we will offer to the world, regardless of what the sin is.
Lastly, you talk about how common it is for “Christians” today to engage in premarital sex and affairs. I know a LOT of people who CLAIM to be Christians who do not strive in any way to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many have taken the lead of our government to reclassify right and wrong into choice.
How convenient for them.
But I know many GOOD Christians from many different sects that live very righteous lives. I believe that anyone who is striving to live the gospel will not find himself or herself engaging in such vile sin. It truly is, as in Lehi’s dream. The tree of life is there for us if we will hold fast to the Iron rod. But if we let go, we will eventually find ourselves so far from the path, and lost that we can engage in such things.
This is exactly the problem with our country today. People give lip-service to the Lord but CHOOSE not to follow his creed. Once again this is solved within the homes. And to solve this problem we do not need every citizen to be a member of the church. They can have whatever affiliations they wish. They just need to CHOOSE righteousness.
I didn’t mean to come off so preachy. It is what it is. Have a great day:)
Ammon, I gave Fran the benefit of the doubt. I don't think she meant to imply that a fair number of our religious leaders have committed adultery. I think she was talking about character defects in general. Of which we all have plenty. If she meant otherwise then I certainly would disagree.
ReplyDeleteI do think there is some merit to expecting a little more out of our elected officials. Where much is given, much is required. I think this applies to power. Where much power is given, much is required of an individual's character. I certainly expect President Obama to display a higher degree of character than I expect out of a random man I pass on the street because the president has the ability to affect us all with his actions while random Joe on the street isn't likely to have a forum whereby he can sway a large section of society. The same holds true down through all levels of government.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOk, I just wanted to delete that comment above and I can't. How lame. So, mentally scratch it. I want to re-write it so it's clear, because I don't think it is at all.
ReplyDeletebottom line: No one is perfect. There are people who sin, and sin grossly, who are may still believe in what's right or moral. There are people who sin, and still manage to lead decently. I personally feel that we cannot make assumptions on what a person truly believes or thinks based on a few facts. We can declare actions and behaviors as evil and/or immoral, but unless God calls a person evil, I don't know that we should. Also, I think you can only expect people to act according to the knowledge and understanding they have. Someone who has no grasp of what's right and wrong, and has to go on his own good judgement may not live up to what you expect but it doesn't mean they haven't tried their best. A lot of people, even in the Church only have limited understanding and will be judged accordingly. I don't see a need to be harsher than the Lord.
Yes, politicians are Men and Women. Yes they are imperfect. However, when you choose to step into the limelight you also must choose to live life at a higher standard. This goes for politicians, movie stars, sports stars, Church Leaders (although they did not choose their calling) or anyone else in a position of prominence.
ReplyDeleteThey have become a standard of sorts. And when they set a bad example or act immorally then the give permission as-it-were for the population to rationalize sin.
However, since you brought up Bill Clinton, I believe that everyone has the agency to choose whatever they will. I believe that Bill had a solemn duty to live a more ethical and moral life. And the conundrum that was his affair was between him and God and his wife (who I doubt cared much about it). What I have a problem with is the fact that he LIED to the American people via national broadcast. All he had to say was that such allegations were a personal and he had no comment.
If he will lie about that, what else will he lie about. If he will cheat on his wife, what else will he cheat on. Although it is not my place to judge his standing with God, It is completely within my right to question his integrity as a leader of our Nation and to be uneasy about his moral fiber. Even with repentance, there remains consequences to actions.
Ammon, you're right. That's what I mean when I say that Clinton's sexual deviancy was evidence of a greater character flaw (did I say that? I meant to.) I would venture to guess that people who are generally honest individuals don't often get wrapped up in a history of sexual affairs. That could be conjecture but I think it's a fair assumption.
ReplyDeleteWithout rehashing the problems of 1997, I think the average citizen's anger (and the reason for the impeachment hearing) had less to do with the lies and cover-up rather than the affairs. I'm not saying that everybody would have been quick to forgive (not that Clinton even needed our forgiveness) had he just admitted it, but I think the Republican leadership would have had a much harder time convincing the Senate republicans to proceed with the impeachment proceedings.
Anyway, that's not really what the post is about. I'm not at all interested in what Bill Clinton did 12 years ago or even with what he's doing now with his personal life. Let's not pretend he's the only president to ever do this sort of thing. He happens to have done it in a highly politicized environment when calls for impeachment and removal from office come at the drop of a hat.
Now, do our leaders have an obligation to keep a higher moral/ethical standard? That's an interesting discussion. Let me think about it for awhile. I've got some mice to weigh before lunch.
Your such a killer!
ReplyDeleteWell, I think a general agreement on whether politicians have to live by a higher standard is key here. Ammon may feel that way, but if that's not how everyone feels or a clear sentiments that politicians are fully aware off then I find that a bit problematic.
ReplyDeleteI personally would like to see anyone who's in the public view do better than the rest of us, but at the same time I don't expect them to. And I wouldn't expect myself or my family to do better or worse with their lives because of how someone else acts. It's no excuse to me if I have been taught proper principals. Of course, when there are no moral instructions to be found anywhere, and then even those who may lead or teach by example because of their visibility fail to use that chance, then morality will be hard to find in general. But, I don't think anyone else is responsible for my actions and my life other than myself.
I really liked Christofferson's quote. I think ideally we could govern ourselves with minimal governmental involvement. And this all kind of brings it back to the question whether man is inherently evil or good. I personally believe that we are good and therefore I hope people are. But, I realize that it is an ideal and we all fall short of ideals.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing is that every system of government, Socialism, Capitalism, Republics, Monocracies, Theocracies, Autocracies, you name it all rely on the goodness of their people. I like our Republic because it seems to work even without us being perfectly good (at least there is more room for error because the power is divided through checks and balances). I like that we have a mix of different ideals and that Capitalism can be checked by Socialistic programs and vice versa. I like that we have laws that protect me from others' wickedness and others from my wickedness. I like to think that our laws keep us honest (and in a large part they do). But I agree that when you have to spell out every possible exception to the rule to prevent someone from circumnavigating about just being honest, or good, that things get problematic. You then need to hire a lawyer just to understand the law. You can barely understand every level of a new law and things can be subtly hidden in the legal wording without you ever noticing. Then you make amendments and it gets more and more complicated.
Yes, I yearn for an more understandable, simpler government. I yearn for people to be wholeheartedly good. And I yearn for more local power, and power for the states, and I think Christofferson's quote inspires me to be better (and a lot of others too for that matter--as I think it was intended).
But I'll take what we've got and I'll try to make it better as I think our forefathers tried to do as well. We're a lot larger now with a community of 309 million people, not to mention our dealings with the global community. And I think that just makes it more complicated as well.
My two cents: Henry
Another problem with an overly complex government is that you end up writing laws that not even the congress understands. You can't seriously tell me that actual congressmen wrote a 2000 page bill on health care with all of that jargon and legalese. They didn't write it and I'm very concerned that our laws aren't being written by our elected representative anymore.
ReplyDeleteAs for your last point Henry. I agree that at over 300 million strong we are more complex but that doesn't mean we need to stray from constitutional principles the way we are. I'm of the belief that the constitution was established through inspiration to be useful in all eras and in all situations and that all of our problems can be solved within the confines of that document. Unless one is of the progressive, academic mindset that is becoming increasingly prevalent which says that we've somehow evolved past the constitution; I don't see the wisdom in taking any steps that go contrary to it.
Well, I think the constitution is the operating law document of the US, and should be maintained and adhered to. But, at the same time, being a non-US Mormon, I think that maybe more is added to the constitution than it really is. We don't know how far reaching the inspiration was, or what exactly was inspired and what maybe wasn't in regards to the constitution. Really, we don't know much except that God had his hand involved. And I frankly believe God has his hand involved everywhere. It just may not be mentioned specifically in scripture we have right now. So, to me, without offense, I find it a little disconcerting with what religious zeal some speak about the constitution. As far as I know, it's not scripture. And I refuse to treat it as such.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, that comment didn't have much to do with anything. But since we're speaking about the Constitution, Henry wonders why we can't add to the constitution. In a way it would make sense. Just as we don't believe the scriptures are the final word, but that God still speaks today, why can't the Constitution be a vibrant, living document, that can grow and evolve with its nation. If it was supposed to be the foundation, well, every foundation has things build upon it, added to it, etc. Maybe this is what's supposed to happen? Just throwing that out there. And on top of that I personally just find it funny that sometimes the same people who are so concerned with the constitution being adhered to, are ok with it being disregarded when it fits their views (the AZ bill would actually be a great example for that, since immigration is a federal jurisdiction, and it would therefore be unconstitutional for a State to take that power upon themselves).
First, there's a perfectly suitable way of adding to the constitution. They are called amendments, just another part of the genius of the document.
ReplyDeleteAs per the AZ bill being unconstitutional, the department of justice is looking at it. Yes, immigration is a federal issue and the state of AZ ultimately leaves the power in the hands of the federal government because the law gives no power over state or local cops to deport people. All they can do is turn the people into the federal agents so I don't see a glaring contradiction. But really (and this goes back to at least George Bush maybe farther) the federal government has refused to tackle this issue. I have some suspicions as to why. Briefly, it's too risky politically and our politicians are more worried about their careers than in doing what's best for both Americans and those wishing to immigrate here. If the AZ bill is found to be unconstitutional then I hope it's overturned but if the feds want to avoid other states like Texas and Utah from passing similar laws then they'd better stop dragging their feet and take
care of the issue themselves. It's their responsibility and they are doing a crap of a job.
Wow, lots of good dialogue going here.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Troy, why have you not yet posted another great hotbed for debate?
Second, Troy you are correct. The founders did provide a way to address ongoing and new issues within the scope of what is and is not constitutional. It was a brilliant and effective form of government that was implemented. Of course, we as a people have neglected it and let it turn into what it is today. A MESS.
What I think is so interesting is how much we as a people are beginning to make the same mistakes that Rome made. Our form of government was loosely based on theirs. I have been studying the history of Rome. WE COULD LEARN A LOT from them.
But I think that Troy hit the nail on the head. We have a government that is motivated by selfishness instead of selflessness (one of the problems of Rome). We can almost look at congress as a scientific sample of our culture to take it's temperature, so-to-speak. Our country has become a selfish and self-aggrandizing one. We are sick. If our politicians were honestly doing their jobs to "represent the people" we would have a VERY different government than we have today.
If we look at a snapshot of our country and the people and problems that existed when it was founded and compare it to today it shows us a very stark gap. There was some crime and lawlessness, but for the most part the people were simple. They worked hard for what they had and they were generally faithful and religious people.
We used to pray, read the Bible and teach the Moral Law in public schools. Those things have all been thrown away.
Ezra Taft Benson turned heads when he said something along these lines. *this is paraphrased* ‘Athiesm is becoming more and more the National religion in America.’ Athiesm is one of the main stepping-stones to becoming a truly socialistic country.
President Benson also warned us in a talk he gave titled “A vision and a hope for the youth of Zion” (http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6162)
In it he warns us about Communism and Socialism. He said:
“Another notable counterfeit system to the Lord's plan is collectivized socialism. Socialism derives its philosophy from the founders of communism, Marx and Engels. Communism in practice is socialism. Its purpose is world socialism, which the communists seek to achieve by revolution, and which the socialists seek to achieve by evolution. Both communism and socialism have the same effect upon the individual--a loss of personal liberty. As was said so well by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The two are as two peas in a pod in their ultimate effect upon our liberties."
“Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.”
“As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to o¬¬¬ver forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.”
He was WISE! Go read that talk. He gave it as an Apostle and it is inspired.
Wow Ammon where do I begin with all of that. I agree with what you've written. I think, however, that it is instructive to look at the context within which Pres. Benson and Pres. Clark were speaking. Pres. David O. McKay also spoke out alot (in general conference even) against Communism. Then again, speaking out against communism is a no-brainer. It is evil.
ReplyDeleteThese quotes were all given in the mid-to-late 60s. America was fighting a foolish war (we do alot of that in the latter half of the 20th century) in Vietnam brought on partly as tensions rose between the USSR and the USA. We were deep into the cold war and the threat that the Russians posed to the world was very grave. The church leaders were strongly encouraging church members to stand up for the principles of freedom and liberty. I do not agree with socialism but the way it's practiced today in western Europe is much more an economic model (albeit one with which I disgree)than a form of government. European democracies are representative republics similar to our own. Now I think a socialistic economy can succeed in a relatively peaceful world. Last time I checked, western Europe wasn't the third world. However, I think socialism sets the foundation for a very easy transition to communism given the right circumstances because it centralizes too much power into federal or national governments. An economic meltdown such as the one we are on the verge of at the moment (don't believe anyone who says the economy isn't still on very, very thin ice) will surely usher in an era of government control and power unlike anything we have seen in the developed world for decades. This is why statements such as the one Rahm Emmanuel (Obama's number two guy; we all know the VP doesn't count for anything) made a year ago: "You can't let a good crisis go to waste" scare me. Combined with Hillary Clinton's similar comment, I'm paraphrasing because I can't find the exact quote right now: "The current economic condition allows us to do things that we couldn't otherwise do." This tells me that our government is using the economic instability to lay the foundation for a system that is fundamentally different than what this country was founded on and what has served to make this the most successful country in the history of time. Even Obama himself said just days before the election: "We are five days from fundamentally transforming America." Think about that. FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING AMERICA? I'll be the first to admit that we've got some issues in this country, very few of them that the president has any direct control over but America is not in need of fundamental transformation. I think the fundamentals were laid out pretty well for us in 1789 and they aren't in need of any change. America doesn't need Obama's fundamental transformation. America needs to RETURN to her FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES.
Alexander Hamilton warned of people being willing to give up their liberties to the government in the event of some event that seems catastrophic. We're right in the middle of that right now and the government is about to "let a good crisis go to waste."
Another quote from the same talk given by President Ezra Taft Benson.
ReplyDelete"Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:
'If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]'
That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!"
Amen, Ammon. The constitution is great and it works. It was a monumental compromise (which is part of its success I believe) between the likes of Patrick Henry who wanted a federal government that, in hindsight, most likely would have been too weak and the likes of John Adams who probably wanted too much federal government. However, I doubt even Adams would have wanted anything CLOSE to what we have now. Thomas Jefferson was not in the country during the ratification process but was supportive overall of the document but was instrumental in arguing in favor of adding a bill of rights to further restrict what powers the government could claim.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the thoughts and writings of the various founders around that period you can get a great idea of what their fears were concerning the American system and, man, were those fears ever warranted. I understand that times change and things need to be tweaked a little here and there but, inasmuch as we have been faithful to the core principles of the Constitution this country has always prospered. Now we're starting to try things a different way and is it any wonder that America is now a nation in decline?
Here's one of my favorites from Thomas Jefferson:
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
And this one from John Adams. Humorous, but true:
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress."