Texas

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Tyranny of the majority

“Which is better to be dominated by one tyrant 3000 miles away or 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?”
-Pastor Mother Bryce (1706-1788)

Is it really important whether the means of reducing freedom is a monarch or a generally elected legislature? The challenge is that freedom survives democracy, with a witty version brought to the Boston crowd in 1775 by a lesser-known colonial preacher with his famous uncle Cotton Mather. We are tackling the old question of whether we can do it.

Bryce was a Loyalist, who opposed the American Revolutionary War in 1776, along with about one-third of the American adult white male population, and supported continued British rule. He did not fight for the king or upset George Washington’s army, but only warned of the dangers of too much democracy.

Free-minded thinkers I know do not seriously insist on supporting hereditary monarchy today, but many of us have uncontrollable hybrid democracy as it is in America today. I’m afraid. I say “hybrid”. Because our federal structure includes several safeguards against runaway democracy, including equal state representatives in the Senate, electoral corps, state administration of federal elections, and lifelong federal judges and judges. Is left. ..

Of course, the originally created Senate did not consist of generally elected Senators. Rather, they were appointed by the state legislature to represent the sovereign state as a state rather than the people within it. Some of James Madison’s genius was the construction of the federal government as a three-sided table. The first side stood for people-the House of Representatives. The second side represents the sovereign state-the Senate. And the third side represented the nation-state, the president. Today, the judiciary, whose important role was not considered in 1789, was not part of this mix.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano: Who keeps our freedoms safe?

Madison eloquently opposed the law chartering national banks in a well-known banking speech. Not only did the authority to set up a bank exist in the Constitution, but it was retained by the state and reserved by Article 10 of the Amendment.

In his speech, he warned that the creeping expansion of the federal government would trample state power and the myriad rights of the people. Or slander.

He delivered his speech in February 1791, 11 months before the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) was added to the Constitution. Given the general fear of the new central government, Madison assumed that the Bill of Rights would be ratified soon. He was right.

His banking speech is just as relevant today.

Click here to get our opinion newsletter

If Madison was alive during World War I, the Federal Reserve, the federal state, and the anti-Madison Woodrow Wilson presidential era that gave us federal income tax, he would oppose the president and put up a three-sided table. I would have destroyed it. .. Wilson did that by leading a campaign to amend the Constitution to provide a direct and popular election for Senators. Also, Madison would not have been angry with today’s efforts by the Liberal Democratic Party to amend the Constitution to provide the president’s direct and popular elections.

Part of Madison’s genius was to create an anti-democratic element in the Constitution. And some of them-to retain national sovereignty-created a laboratory of liberty. Ronald Reagan reminded the American people in his first inaugural address that the state formed a federal government. Not the other way around.

If I were the scrivener for the speech, I would have asked him to add:

More from the opinion

Reagan also famously said that we could vote on our own feet. If you don’t like Massachusetts over-the-top regulations, you can move to New Hampshire. If you’re tired of the highest state taxes in your New Jersey union, you can move to Pennsylvania.

However, the more state sovereignty the Federal Reserve absorbs (the more state governed by the federal government), the less difference the state’s regulatory and taxing structure will have. This happened because Congress (which senses a popular majority) became a general legislature, regardless of the constitutional restrictions imposed on it.

If Congress wants to regulate areas of human behavior that clearly exceed its constitutional capabilities, it bribes the state to do so with cash borrowed or created by the Federal Reserve. Therefore, before the DUI presumption was discussed, it provided the state with hundreds of millions of dollars to lower the speed limit on the highway and lower the acceptable blood alcohol levels in people’s veins-this is really You would have turned off Madison-in exchange for cash to pave the state-maintained highways.

The state is also partially responsible for this. They receive the cash provided by Congress and accept the strings that accompany it. And they are also tyrants.

The state, not the federal government, mandated an unconstitutional and catastrophic blockade in 2020. States should pay political and financial implications for their wrongdoing, not the Federal Reserve. They robbed them of property and freedom without paying it, as the Constitution requires them, not the Federal Reserve.

Click here to get the FOX News app

Bryce was afraid of the government of 3,000 people. Today, the Fed employs nearly 3 million people. Thomas Jefferson tells Washington politicians (not loyal to the Constitution) that they promise to bring back the most cash when the Federal Treasury becomes a federal trough and people admit it that way. Warned that he would only send.

And the majority takes whatever they want from a limited government, private property, or a minority who values ​​personal freedom.

Click here to read more about Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Tyranny of the majority

Source link Judge Andrew Napolitano: Tyranny of the majority

Back to top button