The more perfect union is a federal system with the states subject to the will of the union (the current USA), though the states do influence the union in the senate. While the union brings synergy and stability, the civil war well-established that states were not free to leave, and that the union does not derive its powers (i.e. answer to) the states. If "the United States is a voluntary union among several free and independent states," then she would have dissolved long ago. Clearly a confederate USA would be quite similar to the EU, which has not existed for very long. While the federation was not set-up as "the product of conquest or coercion," the North has clearly changed all that with her Civil War.
In a confederation, Aristotle warns of the dangers of mob rule in the smaller, regional political bodies of the states. It was quite common for states to go to great excesses in land re-possession of the American Indians, racial slavery, segregation. and denial of suffrage, and even exterminate people for their beliefs. The federation is the more stable system, and it brings domestic tranquility by diffusing the power of local mobs (political factions) across a larger body politic. The founders behind the confederation were as wrong as the ones who delayed the Bill of Rights. However smart they were, they lacked the experience of several hundred years of seeing how things worked with their new system while moving into a modern, electronic era.
Removing power from the federal government merely creates a power vacuum to be filled by the state (or local governments) and we know well that each are just as ready to abuse that power. At least on the federal level, we may achieve uniformity, predictability, equality among states, and universal fairness with just standards immune to local "politics."
It would be good to set the same standards fairness on all levels of government: for instance, wealth does not influence government to greater privilege (notice lobbying or "vote" buying) or to greater (or less .. see loopholes) taxation.
The states do not enjoy the right of separation now, whether or not they had the right before. The Civil War essentially changed the constitution, not altered in what it said, but in how it is interpreted. The current interpretation is what matters most because we are reforming the current system ... it is the only system that we understand by our own experience and thus it is our only true basis from which to work, besides the less intimate lessons of history. Should we assume that the earlier interpretation (lacking the experience which brought us to Civil War) was better? No. In fact, I think it was far worse. A less perfect union of fragile alliances.
Mob rule is more dangerous in smaller groups because the zealous extremist factions hold a much larger percentage of the vote and of influence. In larger groups, the various local factions hold different interests, and thus loose power through the diversity of interests throughout the various regions. Voting with the feet (political refugees) worked in old times, but the purpose of this document is to create no safe haven for political injustice. The problem is not the amount of power but the laws governing its use.
When tyrants cannot pull the trigger without being sure that the gun was NOT aimed at his own head, then he will not pull it and he CEASES to be a tyrant (no opportunity); this is the purpose of making government blind .. it can't target anyone without targeting everyone, including the tyrant himself. Read my amendments closely and I think you will see that it is possible to disable the tyrant and mob rule while protecting and advancing both freedom and justice in a democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment