Consent of the governed - and the lack thereof | Washington Examiner
If you are interested in politics (or just current events), Instapundit is a daily "must visit" blog. Today the Instapundit, Glenn Reyondols of the University of Tennessee law school has a column in the Washington Examiner asking the question: Does our current government really derive its powers from the consent of the governed? And if it doesn't, can the present government's exercise of power be considered "just" as understood from the Declaration of Independence?
Key bit:
A nation whose government does not rest on the consent of the governed is a nation whose government holds sway only by inertia, or by force.It is a nation vulnerable to political shocks, usurpation, or perhaps even political collapse or civil war. It is a body politic suffering from a serious illness. Those who care about America should be very worried.
Plus, a comparison of American government to Schlitz beer. Disturbing.
2 comments:
While not disagreeing with its main premise, the column you cite is somewhat faulty. The Declaration of Independence is not law. Treating it as on par with the Constitution, which allows for the abolition or alteration of the government through elections, occurs far too often.
True, the Declaration is not law. Not that our current leaders bother themselves too much with what is "legal" and what isn't. But the Declaration is the document that memorialized the reasons why the people of the colonies were willing to risk everything (lives, fortunes, sacred honor) to go to war against the most powerful nation on earth. The Declaration expresses the motivations of the people who founded our nation and, ultimately, who wrote the Constitution.
There is a terrific video over on PJTV.com which explains it very well. Bill Whittle says: The Declaration sets forth the "why" of America, while the Constitution merely explains the "how."
Post a Comment