The government in this country rests on one thing- the CONSENT of the GOVERNED. With the Constitution we, the People, set up a compact with the Several States to establish a central government. We, the People are the bedrock for this authority which we granted to government with our consent for the government to act in our names and on our behalf in certain LIMITED matters. However, the key phrase here is “Consent of the Governed.” Which also applies to our relationship with the several States.
As you know (or SHOULD know), I, as an individual, can only consent to having someone do for me THAT WHICH I MAY RIGHTLY DO FOR MYSELF. For example, I may not rightly put a gun to YOUR head to get you to pony up to pay for my wife’s facelift (or even life-saving cancer surgery). If I as an individual cannot do that, how can I LEGITIMATELY consent to having someone else do it in my name and on my behalf? I cannot. Period. The same is true for compelling you to either ingest or put something into your body, such as vitamins or vaccinations, or refrain from ingesting or putting into your body (tobacco smoke or White Castle gut-bombs).
On the other side, since I can rightly screen who comes into my home and take measures to keep out undesirables, then it must follow that, since my country is ALSO my home, I can consent to rules regarding who may enter and on what conditions. I may rightly use whatever level of force is necessary to defend my own person or my loved ones, my neighbors and my/our property; thus, I can properly consent to hiring someone (government) to do that in my name and on my behalf.
So, ANYTHING that government proposes to do to expand the scope of its authority MUST absolutely be looked at through the prism of “CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.” Which, in essence, is what the Tenth Amendment is: that prism.
So given the above, apply it to your question.
Well that’s a good post. However...
This argument always sounds convincing, and seems like it should be unassailable. But it’s got a weakness that I’ve never been able to quite nail down. Maybe I’ll get it this time.
The flaw in this principle is that, simply put, we the people concede to a governing body the authority to do things we cannot do ourselves. We agree among ourselves that we need some arbitrator, some judge, to settle disputes. In a republic such as ours, that arbitrator is the law. Though we have a say in the making of law, it exists separate from us. (Otherwise we would have an anarchy instead.)
We have further conceded to representatives whom we elect from among ourselves the authority to make law - hence representative democracy in our republic. But even they are governed by law which we created and to which we consented.
The government then does not have ALL authority. But the authority we DID concede is no longer ours to claim. (Except via revolution, as the Declaration says, when certain conditions are met. If we’re at that point, then this discussion is moot until the revolution is completed and we’re starting over again.)
So if we did concede authority (which you’d no doubt agree we did), does that allow the government to do things neither of us alone could rightly do? That seems to be the crux of the matter. And I’ll argue that the government UNDOUBTEDLY DOES.
Can I imprison you for a crime? Can I order you to march into a battle you don’t want to fight? Can I take your money by force and spend it on the defense of our nation? Can I take your property by force and use it for public purpose?
These are all violations of your principle that “we cannot consent to allow government to do things which we cannot rightly do ourselves”, aren’t they? (My paraphrase.) But we together agreed to allow the government to do so, didn’t we? (If you believe we had no right to cede such power, then you must argue for revolution.)
Yours is an invaluable principle for us to use as a restraint on ourselves and our government, but I simply don’t see how it can be a hard-and-fast rule.
I wavered for years between the fascist-prone-social-conservative and anarcho-libertarian positions, until I’ve finally become convinced (for now, anyway) that neither one by itself holds the answer. It’s no more cut-and-dried than the federalist-antifederalist debate was. It’s the DEBATE where the answers lie. It’s the struggle between order and liberty that preserves both.
So you and I will struggle. We’ll disagree on drug legalization for now, mostly because our predictions are both imperfect. But two things we have and will continue to agree on:
1. The federal, state and local governments have abused the situation in order to grab power, and to tyrannize and terrorize the populace.
2. Liberty holds a place of primacy in any debate about legislation.
(Does this answer your question satisfactorily? If I’ve failed to do so, I can try again.)