Mosaic ImmunoEngineering is a nanotechnology-based immunotherapy company developing therapeutics and vaccines to positively impact the lives of patients and their families.
Message: 19th Principle--limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated
Your Vote:
Did you know?
You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)
19th
Principle
Only limited and carefully defined powers
should be delegated to government,
all others being retained in the people.
Principle
Only limited and carefully defined powers
should be delegated to government,
all others being retained in the people.
-
-
No principle was emphasized more vigorously during the
Constitutional Convention than the necessity of limiting the
authority of the federal government. Not only was this to be
done by carefully defining the powers delegated to the
government, but the Founders were determined to bind down
its administrators with legal chains codified in the
Constitution.
Constitutional Convention than the necessity of limiting the
authority of the federal government. Not only was this to be
done by carefully defining the powers delegated to the
government, but the Founders were determined to bind down
its administrators with legal chains codified in the
Constitution.
-
It will be recalled that one of the reasons many of the
states would not adopt the original draft of the Constitution
was that they feared the encroachments of the federal
government on the rights of the states and the people. The
first ten amendments were therefore added to include the
ancient, unalienable rights of Anglo-Saxon freemen so there
could be no question as to the strictly limited authority the
people were conferring on their central government. Notice
how carefully the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are worded:
It will be recalled that one of the reasons many of the
states would not adopt the original draft of the Constitution
was that they feared the encroachments of the federal
government on the rights of the states and the people. The
first ten amendments were therefore added to include the
ancient, unalienable rights of Anglo-Saxon freemen so there
could be no question as to the strictly limited authority the
people were conferring on their central government. Notice
how carefully the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are worded:
-
The Ninth Amendment
-
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
-
The Tenth Amendment
The Tenth 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.
The people felt that the hedging up of federal authority
was absolutely essential because of their experience with
corrupt and abusive governments in the past. Alexander
Hamilton commented on this by saying:
"There is, in the nature of sovereign power, an
impatience of control that disposes those who are
invested with the exercise of it to look with an evil eye
upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its
operations.... This tendency is not difficult to be
accounted for. It has its origin in the love of power.
Power controlled or abridged is almost always the rival
and enemy of that power by which it is controlled or
abridged. This simple proposition will teach us how little
reason there is to expect that the persons entrusted with
the administration of the affairs of the particular
members of a confederacy [the federal government] will
at all times be ready with perfect good humor and an
unbiased regard to the public weal to execute the
resolutions or decrees of the general authority. The
reverse of this [expectation] results from the constitution
of man." (The Federalist Papers, No. 15, p. 111.)
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.
The people felt that the hedging up of federal authority
was absolutely essential because of their experience with
corrupt and abusive governments in the past. Alexander
Hamilton commented on this by saying:
"There is, in the nature of sovereign power, an
impatience of control that disposes those who are
invested with the exercise of it to look with an evil eye
upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its
operations.... This tendency is not difficult to be
accounted for. It has its origin in the love of power.
Power controlled or abridged is almost always the rival
and enemy of that power by which it is controlled or
abridged. This simple proposition will teach us how little
reason there is to expect that the persons entrusted with
the administration of the affairs of the particular
members of a confederacy [the federal government] will
at all times be ready with perfect good humor and an
unbiased regard to the public weal to execute the
resolutions or decrees of the general authority. The
reverse of this [expectation] results from the constitution
of man." (The Federalist Papers, No. 15, p. 111.)
-
Original Balance Between
Federal Government and States
Federal Government and States
-
The separation of powers between the states and the
federal government was designed to reinforce the principle of
limited government. The federal government was supreme in
all matters relating to its responsibility, but it was specifically
restricted from invading the independence and sovereign
authority reserved to the States. The Founders felt that
unless this principle of dual sovereignty was carefully
perpetuated, the healthy independence of each would
deteriorate and eventually one or the other would become
totally dominant. If the federal government became
dominant, it would mean the end of local self-government
and the security of the individual. On the other hand, if the
states became dominant, the federal government would
become so weak that the structure of the nation would begin
to fractionalize and disintegrate into smaller units. Alexander
Hamilton emphasized these views of the Founders when he
wrote:
The separation of powers between the states and the
federal government was designed to reinforce the principle of
limited government. The federal government was supreme in
all matters relating to its responsibility, but it was specifically
restricted from invading the independence and sovereign
authority reserved to the States. The Founders felt that
unless this principle of dual sovereignty was carefully
perpetuated, the healthy independence of each would
deteriorate and eventually one or the other would become
totally dominant. If the federal government became
dominant, it would mean the end of local self-government
and the security of the individual. On the other hand, if the
states became dominant, the federal government would
become so weak that the structure of the nation would begin
to fractionalize and disintegrate into smaller units. Alexander
Hamilton emphasized these views of the Founders when he
wrote:
-
"This balance between the national and state
governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar
attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a
double security to the people. If one encroaches on their
rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other.
Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing
their constitutional limits, by certain rivalship which will
ever subsist between them." (Quoted in Lord Acton,
Essays on Freedom and Power, The Free Press, Glencoe,
Illinois, 1949, p. 218.)
"This balance between the national and state
governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar
attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a
double security to the people. If one encroaches on their
rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other.
Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing
their constitutional limits, by certain rivalship which will
ever subsist between them." (Quoted in Lord Acton,
Essays on Freedom and Power, The Free Press, Glencoe,
Illinois, 1949, p. 218.)
-
Where Power Rivals Power
-
The Founders felt that by having a wholesome balance
between the federal and state governments, the people would
have recourse to one or the other in case of usurpation or
abuse by either. Commenting further on this, Hamilton said:
"Power being almost always the 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. The people, by throwing themselves into
either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their
rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the
other as the instrument of redress." (The Federalist
Papers, No. 28, p. 181.)
The Founders felt that by having a wholesome balance
between the federal and state governments, the people would
have recourse to one or the other in case of usurpation or
abuse by either. Commenting further on this, Hamilton said:
"Power being almost always the 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. The people, by throwing themselves into
either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their
rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the
other as the instrument of redress." (The Federalist
Papers, No. 28, p. 181.)
-
Why the Founders Would Have
Frowned on the 17th Amendment
Frowned on the 17th Amendment
-
But would the states be able to protect themselves from
the might of the federal government if the Congress began
legislating against states' rights? Originally, the states could
protect themselves because U.S. Senators were appointed by
the state legislatures, and the Senate could veto any
legislation by the House of Representatives which they
considered a threat to the rights of the individual states.
Unfortunately, the protection of states' rights by this means
was completely wiped out by the passage of the Seventeenth
Amendment in 1913.
But would the states be able to protect themselves from
the might of the federal government if the Congress began
legislating against states' rights? Originally, the states could
protect themselves because U.S. Senators were appointed by
the state legislatures, and the Senate could veto any
legislation by the House of Representatives which they
considered a threat to the rights of the individual states.
Unfortunately, the protection of states' rights by this means
was completely wiped out by the passage of the Seventeenth
Amendment in 1913.
-
That amendment provided that Senators would
thenceforth be elected by popular ballot rather than
appointed by the state legislatures. This meant the states as
sovereign commonwealths had lost their representation on
the federal level, and their Senators would be subject to the
same popular pressures during an election campaign as
those which confront the members of the House of
Representatives.
That amendment provided that Senators would
thenceforth be elected by popular ballot rather than
appointed by the state legislatures. This meant the states as
sovereign commonwealths had lost their representation on
the federal level, and their Senators would be subject to the
same popular pressures during an election campaign as
those which confront the members of the House of
Representatives.
-
Since that time, there has been no veto power which the
states could exercise against the Congress in those cases
where a federal statute was deemed in violation of states'
rights. The Senators who used to be beholden to their state
legislatures for their conduct in Washington are now
beholden to the popular electorate. Federal funds
appropriated for a state are generally a source of popular
acclaim, and Senators, like Congressmen, usually hasten to
get them approved. Too often it has been of little
consequence that those funds might be expended in violation
of basic powers reserved to the state.
Since that time, there has been no veto power which the
states could exercise against the Congress in those cases
where a federal statute was deemed in violation of states'
rights. The Senators who used to be beholden to their state
legislatures for their conduct in Washington are now
beholden to the popular electorate. Federal funds
appropriated for a state are generally a source of popular
acclaim, and Senators, like Congressmen, usually hasten to
get them approved. Too often it has been of little
consequence that those funds might be expended in violation
of basic powers reserved to the state.
-
Sometime in the not-too-distant future, the people may
want to take another look at the present trend and consider
the advantages of returning to the Founders' policy of having
state legislatures in the United States Senate. It might give
us another generation of Senators like Daniel Webster, John
Calhoun, and Henry Clay.
Sometime in the not-too-distant future, the people may
want to take another look at the present trend and consider
the advantages of returning to the Founders' policy of having
state legislatures in the United States Senate. It might give
us another generation of Senators like Daniel Webster, John
Calhoun, and Henry Clay.
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply