ACTION

One might be tempted to say, the Founding Fathers did the most nearly perfect job that’s ever been done of creating a government . . . however, we are surrounded by legions of those who don’t just doubt the near perfection of the job as many of them do, but literally legions who doubt it was even a good job. Some of them, mostly covertly, would consider “Das Kapital” by Marx as formulating a much more apt and perfect solution to this question as to what kind of government is best for mankind. Of course there are all manner of socialists around too, who would argue they’re merely talking about some needed, harmless and over-all beneficial “tweaking” of the Document in question. All of these individuals and groups are what’s called “progressives.” Progressives see the U.S. Constitution as an outdated and flawed document and see the need to “progress” beyond both the word and the spirit of the Constitution. Should we? Are they correct? Is it outdated? Is it seriously flawed?

The continuum of human government runs from anarchy (total freedom, total lack of responsibility, total lack of government, each man for himself) to totalitarianism (zero freedom, 100% duty; 100% government involvement in every aspect of existence, absolute power concentrated in a central government and thus every man exists only at the pleasure of the state and only to benefit the state). The thirteen colonies had just had two very recent experiences with unsatisfactory government . . . in the first instance the autocratic rule of King George III over the colonies went too far to the left, too far toward totalitarianism for their tastes. But when the British were kicked out, the loose pact created by the thirteen states under the Articles of Confederation was unsatisfactory in its closeness to anarchy.

Within reason, the colonials accepted the proposition that the government which governed (that is interfered with and coerced the citizens) the least was the best form of government. The Founding Fathers, “in order to create a more perfect union,” came up with a Republic in which the peoples’ representatives would be chosen by popular vote, democratic process . . . but as they were building a Constitution for the new government, the central government looked a little too potentially malicious and powerful for many tastes and so the powers of that central entity was dramatically curtailed by the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution (ensuring such personal freedoms as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to bear arms, freedom from ex post facto laws, right to due process, etc., etc., and most importantly the 10^th Amendment stating that except for the seventeen explicitly mentioned powers and responsibilities of the federal government ALL other power was reserved for the individual states and the individual citizens of the Republic.

Since 1901, the succession to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt has marked mostly a succession of progressive presidents intent upon expanding their own powers and the powers of the centralized federal government over the states and the citizens. Obviously some good has been done, the National Park System seems, on balance a good thing, that is NOT the question. It’s a question of progressive aims. There’s no provision in the Constitution for the federal government owning huge tracts of land, but beside the national parks today, the majority of several western states is actually owned by the federal government and not the states themselves. The congress or the people could have passed an amendment to the Constitution expanding the federal powers to include, national parks and perhaps another allowing the central government to own such huge expanses of a given state’s land . . . but chances are the second one would NOT have passed, and perhaps the national parks as well . . . but it should have been the people’s choice yea or nay.