|
Contributors
Gary M. Galles - Contributor
Mr.
Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.
[go to Galles index]
 Federalist
17 Under Fire
Mr. Kerry wants more government... the Founders wanted
less...
[Gary M. Galles] 9/27/04
In studying
the multitudes of Senator Kerry’s campaign
pronouncements and proposals, it seems that he is running for
every office in America, not just President. He seemed to want
to be police chief, school superintendent, agricultural commissioner,
zoning board member, city councilman, and every other office
but dog catcher (and I may have just missed his proposals for
that). But his litany of federal “solutions” to every
problem in America (all apparently to be funded by those earning
over $200,000 per year), no matter how local, glaringly shows
how far his view of the federal government is from that of our
founders.
John Kerry’s
view of government seems to be that Washington knows best in
virtually every area (unless George Bush is President),
and that the federal government should coerce recalcitrant citizens,
as well as state and local governments, to cooperate with its
plans using whatever carrots (new expenditure programs, tax credits
or deductions for certain actions, etc.) and sticks (e.g., threatening
to withhold federal funds, unless desired policies are adopted)
are necessary. He portrays the federal government as the dominant
senior partner in virtually every decision made by anyone. But
our founders had a very different idea--that of a limited federal
government with only enumerated powers, that would be incapable
of such an intrusive and domineering role.
This is clearly demonstrated
in Federalist 17, by Alexander Hamilton, the founder best known
for favoring a powerful central
government. It tried to rebut the claim that “It may be
said that it would tend to render the government of the Union
too powerful, and to enable it to absorb in itself those residuary
authorities, which it might be judged proper to leave with the
States for local purposes.” But his argument, apparently
quite convincing two centuries ago, shows us how far our government
has deviated from that envisioned by the Constitution:
“Allowing the
utmost latitude to the love of power which any reasonable man
can require, I confess I am at a loss to discover
what temptation the persons entrusted with the administration
of the general government could ever feel to divest the States
of the authorities of that description. The regulation of the
mere domestic police of a State appears to me to hold out slender
allurements to ambition...The administration of private justice
between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture
and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things,
in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation,
can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. It is
therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in
the Federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are
connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would
be as troublesome as they would be nugatory; and the possession
of them, for that reason would contribute nothing to the dignity,
to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government.”
“...it may be
safely affirmed, that the sense of the constituent body of
the national representatives, or in other words of the
people of the several States would control the indulgence of
so extravagant an appetite. It will always be far more easy for
the State governments to encroach upon the national authorities,
than for the national government to encroach upon the State authorities.
The proof of this proposition turns upon the greater degree of
influence which the State governments...will generally possess
over the people...”
“The superiority
of influence in favor of the particular governments would result...chiefly
from the nature of the objects
to which the attention of the State administrations would be
directed.”
"The variety
of the more minute interests, which will necessarily fall under
the superintendence of the local administrations...will
form so many rivulets of influence, running through every part
of society..."
"There is one
transcendent advantage belonging to the province of the State
governments...the ordinary administration of criminal
and civil justice...being the immediate and visible guardian
of life and property...regulating all those personal interests
and familiar concerns to which the sensibility of individuals
is more immediately awake...This great cement of society which
will diffuse itself almost wholly through the channels of the
particular governments, independent of all other causes, would...render
them at all times a complete counterpoise and, not infrequently,
dangerous rivals to the power of the Union.”
"The separate governments...will generally possess the
confidence and good will of the people; and with so important
a support be able effectually to oppose all encroachments of
the national government…"
Our federal government
has ballooned far beyond even Alexander Hamilton’s view of a strong central government under the
Constitution (and his argument was written before the protections
of the Bill of Rights, particularly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,
were added as additional protections). It is too bad that we
can’t vote to shrink the federal government back to its
constitutional dimensions in November. But who we elect will
have a major impact on whether we continue to move farther from
the Constitution, or begin to return to it again. CRO
copyright
2004 Gary M. Galles
§
|
