5 Dec 2024 7:26 am
Limited Powers versus Omnipotent Powers
The difference between a limited-government republic and a national-security state is the difference between day and night. Under a limited-government republic, the federal government’s powers were extremely limited. In fact, the only powers the federal government could legally exercise were those enumerated in the Constitution. There was a relatively small military force, and since it fell within the executive branch of the federal government, its powers were limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution.
The last thing that the American people wanted was a government that wielded omnipotent, totalitarian-like powers. They understood that people would not be free under that type of government. People would inevitably have their rights and freedoms restricted and even destroyed by a government wielding such powers. In other words, the more restricted the powers, the freer the people would be. The more unrestricted the powers, the less free the people would be.
Thus, if the Constitution had called for a national-security state form of government, there is no doubt whatsoever that our American ancestors would have rejected it. That would have meant that the United States would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation, another type of governmental system under which the federal government’s powers were so weak that it didn’t even have the power to tax.
That’s what Americans wanted — a federal government with extremely weak powers. They understood what modern-day Americans do not understand — that the greatest danger to their freedom and well-being lay not in some foreign threat but rather with their very own government.
Even with the limited-powers concept under the Constitution, our American ancestors were still not satisfied. As a condition of approving the Constitution, they demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which actually should be called a Bill of Prohibitions. That’s because those amendments do not give people rights, any more than the Constitution does. Our ancestors understood that people’s rights come from nature and God, as the Declaration of Independence had pointed out. The Bill of Rights was designed to prohibit federal officials from infringing on or destroying natural, God-given rights that preexist government.
In other words, our ancestors understood that the federal government would inevitably attract the type of people who would use governmental force to destroy people’s rights. Thus, they wanted the Bill of Rights enacted to send a clear message to those kind of people — a message that stated that the federal government lacked the power to destroy the rights, lives, liberties, and properties of the American people.
continued....
The difference between a limited-government republic and a national-security state is the difference between day and night. Under a limited-government republic, the federal government’s powers were extremely limited. In fact, the only powers the federal government could legally exercise were those enumerated in the Constitution. There was a relatively small military force, and since it fell within the executive branch of the federal government, its powers were limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution.
The last thing that the American people wanted was a government that wielded omnipotent, totalitarian-like powers. They understood that people would not be free under that type of government. People would inevitably have their rights and freedoms restricted and even destroyed by a government wielding such powers. In other words, the more restricted the powers, the freer the people would be. The more unrestricted the powers, the less free the people would be.
Thus, if the Constitution had called for a national-security state form of government, there is no doubt whatsoever that our American ancestors would have rejected it. That would have meant that the United States would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation, another type of governmental system under which the federal government’s powers were so weak that it didn’t even have the power to tax.
That’s what Americans wanted — a federal government with extremely weak powers. They understood what modern-day Americans do not understand — that the greatest danger to their freedom and well-being lay not in some foreign threat but rather with their very own government.
Even with the limited-powers concept under the Constitution, our American ancestors were still not satisfied. As a condition of approving the Constitution, they demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which actually should be called a Bill of Prohibitions. That’s because those amendments do not give people rights, any more than the Constitution does. Our ancestors understood that people’s rights come from nature and God, as the Declaration of Independence had pointed out. The Bill of Rights was designed to prohibit federal officials from infringing on or destroying natural, God-given rights that preexist government.
In other words, our ancestors understood that the federal government would inevitably attract the type of people who would use governmental force to destroy people’s rights. Thus, they wanted the Bill of Rights enacted to send a clear message to those kind of people — a message that stated that the federal government lacked the power to destroy the rights, lives, liberties, and properties of the American people.
continued....