by Steve Farrell
G. K. Chesterton writes, “In the case of the laws of our American friends it may be said that they break them too easily because they make them too easily.”
This is true wisdom. It is also a reminder, by way of contrast, as to what the Founders stood for v. the current generation of demagogues and fast track legislation men. It was a republic, with a written Constitution (that could only be amended through a difficult process), limited powers outlined in that Constitution to those we elect, of those men elected, subject to recall, impeachment, misdemeanors and high crimes, and frequent elections if they disappoint, mixed forms of representation (rather than strict majority rule) that balanced the whims of the people, with the senior statesmanship of a Senate elected by state legislatures (only the most respected among them, in a contest that would be free of media involvement, would likely be elected), inalienable rights that none of these forms could or should over-ride, and freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, to help foster a moral, educated, informed, and independent thinking people as but another check, and as to the first item on that list, with the character necessary to, by and large, would be freely willing to obey the laws created, and moral enough, not to clamor for laws that would harm their neighbor.
And then there was the division of powers, horizontal, between executive, legislative, and judicial, and vertical, between the national, states, counties, communities, and individuals – with the great body of the laws existing at the more local levels, again by design, so that accountability would be keenly felt, and abuse, more easily corrected.
Again as to the freedom of assembly combined with the other first amendment God-given rights, would be the predicted multiplication of private associations (clubs, organizations, some of narrow interest, some of broad, some organized around an idea or set of ideas, others around an commercial enterprise (narrow or broad), or hobby), a conglomerate of private special interest groups of every variety, if you will, for this or that cause, this or that interest, some politically motivated and engaged, others without a political cause, others in between.
And all this complexity, designed with the purpose, Madison informs us, to have powers competing against powers, interests against interests, creating a bit of gridlock, much of it, in fact, with this blessing, laws proposed, especially on the national level, would be forced to go through considerable debate before they had a chance of becoming law, and with this blessing as well, the more extensive the debate, the more danger and fraud would likely be weeded out, and this too, only the best of laws common to the interests of the various competing groups would likely survive.
Amendments to this inspired scheme of government, as noted, also required a laborious process, greater than any other, to change the central instrument in the slightest, and witnessing the few amendments , 17, after the initial 10, (The Bill of Rights), for a total of 27 in 220 years, the Founders obviously succeeded.
But Chesterton was speaking of another American age, which by his day, had already abandoned the principle of the Senate being elected by the State Legislatures, to act as a counterbalance on the passions of the more pure democratic forces of the House, and there was the expansion of executive power in place, and regulatory agencies of unelected bureaucrats making laws without number, and a trend in place diminishing state rights, concentrating more power in one place (Washington), and there was the power of the mass media to whip the democratic forces up into a frenzy nearly instantaneously … and so with checks diminished, the creation of laws without number had begun (it is far worse now) ….
And the side effect, certainly he is right, of diminishing the influence of a slow reasoned debate between a complex group of forces, with swift lawmaking in a central place, there come less respect for the law, for it feels more like it is imposed, less like consent, and for that matter, there is also as the laws multiply beyond the ability to count, ignorance as to what is the law … which in and of itself breeds disobedience.
The Liberty Letters are a project of the Center for Moral Liberalism
Liberty Letters 