Strong Local Self-Government is the Keystone to Preserving Human Freedom

Proverbs 11:14 “A nation will fall when there is no direction, but with many advisers there is victory.”

We know from history that power automatically becomes more centralized and the purpose of our Constitution was to prevent that from happening. When power becomes more centralized we find that the freedom of the individual is destroyed because the decision-making is done by the officers in central government. We see this happening in our country even today with some of the laws that are being passed and the federal government giving executive orders to the states.

In Anglo-Saxon times the people took pride in their participation in decision-making process. We see the same example in ancient Israel where families were divided up into multiples of tens, 50s, hundreds, and thousands and where problems were solved on the local level.

Thomas Jefferson saw the advantage of the strong local Anglo-Saxon self-government. Historian Richard Frothingham pointed out the local self-government in ancient England with the division into burghs, counties, shires, etc. and where the inhabitants had a voice in managing their own affairs.

Although the crown stepped in and deprived the people of the power of local rule, when these people pulled away from the mother country and migrated to America the idea of local self-rule reappeared and began to frame the laws which were to protect the freedom of the individual and to provide a healthy local self-government. It was Thomas Jefferson who said: “The way to have a good and safe government is not the trusted all to one, but to be divided among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions he is competent to perform best.”

He went on to say: “The national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the state governments with the civil rights, laws, police, administration of what concerns the state generally.”

Tocqueville, in his book called Democracy said that in America it was local self-rule that started and then expanded into a wider rule. It was not the other way around where they had central power and then brought down to self-rule on the local level.

James Madison emphasized the necessity of all possible authority to be in the states with the people and that the Constitution would delegate to the federal government only that which involves the whole people as a nation.

Our Founding Fathers meant for the federal government to be small and inexpensive because of the limited problems which would be assigned to it. Thomas Jefferson saw the federal government reduced to only foreign concerns. How different it is today when we see how bloated our federal government is in trying to give us “cradle-to-grave” instructions and with less safety and security.

Perhaps we should heed the prophetic warning of historian John Fiske who said: “If the day should ever arrive (which God forbid) when the people of the different parts of our country shall allow the local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when the self-government of the states should have been so far lost as that of the departments of France, or even so closely limited as that of the counties of England – on that day the political career of the American people will have been robbed of its most interesting and valuable features, and the usefulness of this nation will be lamentably impaired.”

I think it is interesting to see how many states are suing the federal government. Why? Because of the encroachment of the federal government upon the States and going against the Constitution or law of the land.

The Unalienable Rights of the People Are Most Likely to Be Preserved If the Principles of Government Are Set Forth in a Written Constitution

Habakkuk 2:2 “Then the Lord replied: ‘Write down the revelation and make it plain on tablets so that a herald may run with it.’”

The principles of the common law were known among the Anglo Saxons but they did not see the necessity of writing them down. However, when their most treasured rights disappeared in the Norman Conquest that took place, this taught the Anglo-Saxons a lesson. Slowly these rights were written down over a long period of time and we know from history that in A.D. 1215 King John was threatened to sign the Magna Carta. It was during this time that the principle of no taxation without representation came into being.

It was also in the 17^th century that Charles I was pressured into signing the people’s “Petition of Rights” and later William and Mary signed the English “Bill of Rights.” Through the centuries the British had tried to manage their political affairs without any written Constitution and our American Founding Fathers learning from this felt that a written code was necessary to build a strong government.

The first written charter in America was the Mayflower Compact that later evolved into a more comprehensive type of Constitution when Thomas Hooker adopted what was known as the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut in 1639. Montesquieu, in writing about the Constitution, said that “the wisdom of many is better than a single person.” Founding Fathers felt that the Constitution would be a better fit as it was brought through the wisdom of many delegates instead of leaving it to the genius of some individual. It was James Madison who mentioned that in ancient history the framing of the government was done not through the assembly of many but through an individual of approved wisdom and integrity.

It is never easy to operate through a committee like our Founding Fathers did, but the product – our Constitution – was far stronger than what any one individual could have written.

Just as a side note, in his book Democracy of America, Tocqueville mentioned how impressed he was that the American people were readers. He mentioned of how he could go into the most rugged log cabin and would find the Bible, perhaps a Shakespeare play, but above all he would find newspapers. I thought how different it is today in the 21^st century when out of our schools we are graduating young people who can barely read, let alone enjoy reading books.

Our Constitution has stood the test of time and it is the law of our land. We see today how it is under attack by “political correctness” and is being transformed into something that our Founding Fathers did not envision.

Efficiency and Dispatch Require Government To Operate According to the Will of the Majority, but Constitutional Provisions Must Be Made to Protect the Rights of the Minority.

Proverbs 12:26 “The righteous man is a guide to his friend, but the path of the wicked leads them astray.” (TEV version)

During the Revolutionary War some vital changes needed to be made in the Articles of Confederation, but it was also discovered that a single state could prevent the change from happening. What was discovered was that unanimity is ideal, but can be disastrous in a time of calamity, and in those circumstances majority rule becomes a necessity.

John Locke brought out how it was almost impossible to continually have “unanimous consent,” because of a number of factors – like health, family matters, business, etc. which could keep some away from the assembly where decisions are made. In times of crisis this could be disastrous.

Therefore, in the Constitution provision was incorporated in the text where it would take two thirds of the majority for a decision to be made – such as overriding a Presidential veto – but it would be considered dangerous when applied to the routine business of Congress. In other words, a small minority could seek to control the opinion of the majority by tying everything up in tedious delays, continual negotiation and end up being detrimental to the public good.

However, the Founding Fathers knew what tyrannical conduct of a Parliament can do to the rights of minorities. In his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson said: “All, who, will bear in mind this sacred principle – that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail – that will be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possesses the equal rights, equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

When we stop and think about it that every ethnic group in America was once a minority. We are literally a nation of minorities. It is the responsibility of the minorities themselves to learn the language, seek education and become self-sustaining in order to be an asset to the community. Those who are already well-established can help. The reputation of the United States, perhaps more than any other nation, has been generous and helpful to newcomers.

The body of Christ, especially in the Western world, has a tremendous opportunity as well as responsibility to help those who are coming into our Western civilization to adapt and become an asset to our nation. We also have the opportunity to present the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty says: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” I believe that many who are wanting to come in want to be able to breathe free!

Only Limited and Carefully Defined Powers Should Be Delegated to Government, All Others Be Retained in the People

This goes along with the 10^th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Proverbs 28:4-5 “Those who abandon God’s teachings praise wicked people, but those who follow God’s teachings oppose wicked people. Evil people do not understand justice.” (from GOD’S WORD)

This was one principle that our Founding Fathers felt was very important and that was to prohibit the federal government from having too much power. This principle was to help balance the powers between the federal government and the states. The federal government could keep the states in check and the states could do likewise with the federal government.

The Founding Fathers knew from their study of history that the tendency was always to move towards absolute control to where governments would become corrupt and abusive, this principle was designed to keep the power between the states and the federal government in check with one another. It was designed to reinforce the principle of limited government.

The Founders knew that unless there was a healthy relationship between the federal government and the states that each would begin to deteriorate and one or the other would begin to dominate. In other words, if one or the other began to dominate it would either mean the end of local self-government and the security of the individual or the federal government becoming so weak that the structure of the nation would begin to deteriorate.

The Founders knew – by keeping a strict balance between the state and the federal government – that it would give the individual recourse if abuse came by one or the other. For example, if the states encroached upon the rights of the individual the federal government was there to overcome and if the federal government encroached upon the rights of the individual, the states were there for recourse.

Alexander Hamilton says: “Power being almost always a rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government.”

One problem that has arisen is the election of our U.S. Senators. What would our Founding Fathers think (according to the 17^th amendment) when our senators are elected by popular vote rather than appointed by the state legislatures? If the House of Representatives passed something the U.S. Senate could always block it, but because the U.S. Senate has been appointed by popular vote they often are kept in power by what they can ‘bring home’ to the state or constituents.

For example, I read an article in our last elections that one of the reasons why a voter in the state of Nevada voted for Harry Reid is not because he thought he was the best representative for the state, but because he was able to ‘bring home’ what is known as “pork.” Because of this the question does arise: Are the states able to stop the might of the federal government if the Congress began legislating against state’s rights? At the moment it seems doubtful.

Another danger that is lurking in the back-ground is what is known as “Executive Orders” that while a president is in office He can initiate. Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu¹ said:  “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person.” Todd F. Gaziano Director, Center for Legal & Judicial Studies Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies remarked: “A President who abuses his executive order authority undermines the constitutional separation of powers and may even violate it.”

Thomas Sowell in his book THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED made the comment that government expansion comes through crises. They can be real, created or imaginary but the results are the same. The solution to the crises is more government offices (expansion) in order to fix the problem. When Rahm Emanuel (now the mayor of Chicago) was Obama’s chief of staff he made this famous statement: “We cannot allow a crisis to go to waste.”

Outside the archive building in Washington DC is a monument that declares: “ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF LIBERTY.”

Are we losing our freedom (liberty) because of a lack of vigilance???