5kYL: Principle Thirteen

PROTECTION AGAINST HUMAN FRAILTY

"How can you have an effective government but still protect the freedom and unalienable rights of the people?"

In the American tradition, more confidence is placed in the people than in the leaders. This is because human frailty is linked to power. Skousen sarcastically said that every unconstitutional action was for "good cause". But this is because the leaders were granted too much power. One way increase in grabs of power occurs is when there are no checks between the separate branches. This often happens when one party controls two or all branches of government. When there aren't sufficient checks in power in the government the Constitution is frequently ignored. But how is this eschewed? Abolish the two party system? Promote more parties so the two parties in power now are demoted?

George Washington described government to a fire in that it's "[A] dangerous servant and a fearful master." This is a similar analogy I like to make for arguments against decentralization of power. If you spread the coals of a fire it won't burn as hot or for very long. Likewise, temperance in centralized power infrequently affects the populace negatively and if the people happen to get burned, it's short lived.

Unfortunately, government is a dangerous force that must be harnessed, which is what the Constitution was designed to contain. The Constitution is designed to give authority to officials to perform their duties effectively while at the same time provide strict limitations on said officials. Madison puts it more concisely: "You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

What is meant when Skousen claimed the original Constitution will never be obsolete?

Let's examine this other quote from Madison:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Is the inverse of this statement true? After a slow gradual degradation of liberty, is the only way to regain it a swift and violent revolution?