Why limit government?

There are lots of reasons but as we have become more “progressive” since about 1900, it would appear that a large segment of our population would rather have an “unlimited” government that provides for their every wish.  For those who disagree with that thought, you might want to check the expansion of the welfare rolls and the number receiving food stamps on a regular basis.

That’s a far cry from what the country was and what the Founding Fathers intended as they created our Constitution.  They believed very firmly in a limited government.   Having been under the thumb of a monarch with absolute power over every aspect of their lives, they wanted none of it.  But, perhaps most important, they were willing to “stand on their own” and “be responsible for their own well-being”.  Maybe “they had no choice, “living in a wilderness” with “savages” on their outskirts.  None of that deterred them from their desire for freedom and liberty.

So, what do we mean when we say a “limited government”?

The constitution was in the nature of a contract.  It was a contract between the new federal government and the individual, independent and sovereign, states (or colonies if you prefer).  It stated that the federal government had certain powers and the states retained everything else (Amendments IX and X).  Both parties were expected to live up to their part of the “bargain”.

The Founders were concerned that a federal government might become too powerful if not constrained by specific obligations and responsibilities as detailed in a constitution. They chose their words carefully, considering all possibilities as they worked to define a document that would withstand the tests of time and the onslaught of individuals (they were not called politicians back then).  While they foresaw the potential for distortions and misinterpretations, they could not possibly conceive of the “penumbra” and “emanations” from their words that would allow or justify the creation of departments and agencies totally unrelated to the clauses of the constitution.  Areas that were not defined such as education, energy, environment, the Federal Reserve, etc. have all come about through subtle interpretations of designated powers.  Many have never been challenged or reviewed by the Supreme Court for their constitutionality. 

What we have witnessed is a “normal” growth of an “organ”.  In this case a government which, by its nature and environment in which it operates, will always seek to grow in ways not known or imagined at the time of creation.  Logically, it might be argued that if a population grows, so should the government responsible for managing its “national” affairs.  Keeping a government “small” and forcing it to remain within described bounds is no mean feat. It cannot be done without leaders of integrity and strong character dedicated to the principles underlying its founding.

That we have not had enough such leaders since about 1900 may be contested by today’s “progressives” and “liberals” but there can be no denying that the present situation is a result of their policies and actions during the past century.  Today, our nation has an unsustainable debt load, an educational system that continues to graduate students of lower academic achievement than their foreign contemporaries, a spreading bureaucracy that issues rules and regulations with little Congressional approval or oversight, and a government that is spreading like an octopus into every corner of individual life and livelihood.

That’s why a limited government was our Founder’s choice and gift!  Have we squandered our inheritance?  That’s my view.  What’s yours?  Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com ©Copyright, 2015 Hillard W. Welch