Sandy and the federal government's response
James Madison called and wants to know why people of the 21st century are having a partison debate on which of two presidents did a better job cleaning up after natural disasters when neither possessed the authority to do so. I hope it's OK that I told him he left us with a government that routinely exceeds its authority, with the consent of the least informed citizens.
Would we be having this conversation if government didn't routinely exceed its authority, with the consent of the least informed citizens?
It's interesting to watch this debate on the quality of the federal government's post-disaster cleanup in the affected states following Hurricane Sandy.
Isn't there something objectively wrong in expecting presidents to exercise authority of medieval kings?
On the floor of the US House of Representatives James Madison said he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. (See the Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170.)
Those objects of benevolence Madison refers to are compulsory levies imposed on the people with no other authority than the claim of prerogative -- authority we typically attribute to medieval kings, not a US President who is supposed to be constrained by a charter that traditionally limits government powers to the general welfare, of all the people.
Isn't there something objectively wrong in expecting presidents to exercise authority of medieval kings?
On the floor of the US House of Representatives James Madison said he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. (See the Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170.)
Would we be having this conversation if government didn't routinely exceed its authority, with the consent of the least informed citizens?
In our society we have elected and civic leaders that fully expect the citizens to graciously accept their representations of the laws of the universe without question. The people are well to let others do the important thinking, like judging the validity of evidence. Critical thinking is not encouraged.
In science, well-founded ideas are advanced if they are open to scrutiny and are peer-reviewable. But ideas of politicians requires a measure of faith and trust in their character.
The First and Second Amendments are there precisely because government is not to be trusted, but watched and held accountable by the people and their press -- with arms, if necessary.
