Thoughts on Constitution Day

Two hundred and twenty six years ago today, in 1787, our Constitution was adopted by eleven of the  thirteen Colonies - the "Several States" - at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Later, in 1791, to answer the objections of a number of the States, the first ten Amendments were added: collectively known as the "Bill of Rights." They spelled out quite clearly the sanctity of individual rights under "Natural Law," and put shackles on the power of the central government to usurp them. Also, in 1787, the original Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was written, and later adopted in 1788.

I got to thinking about this today due to having attended two recent public meetings in my Township and observing the interactions between citizens and their local elected Township Commissioners, and from reactions by Commissioners to a brief statement I made there, as well.

At a recent meeting, a fellow resident who with good intentions proposed the creation of yet another Township Committee whose concern would be so called environmental issues allegedly caused by conditions on private or public property involving primarily un-pruned, diseased, or fallen trees, or rainwater runoff which may or may not enter neighboring streets or adjacent creeks.

I made a counter argument, that in the event of damage caused to other properties, streams, or public utilities, civil remedies exist to deal with the financial costs of remediation, and drew attention to Article 1, Section 1 of the PA Constitution the heading of which is entitled the "Inherent Rights of Mankind," and which includes a phrase indicating that one of these rights is that "of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property..."

My point of mentioning that was three fold: first - with that right comes personal responsibility and accountability if one person's exercise of private property rights in some way infringes on the private property rights of one's neighbors or damages public property.

Second, our form of government was instituted to protect the rights of the people rather than to circumscribe them. It is only the business of government, and specifically the Judicial branch, to mediate disputes between neighbors when an amicable arrangement cannot be reached between two parties and one of them feels aggrieved enough to seek a redress through a civil suit.

Lastly, it is the sole mandate of the Legislative and Executive branches at all levels of government to preserve and protect the limited resources of the people it is supposed to represent. That means it has a fiduciary responsibility to be frugal, efficient, and remain as small as possible; that is: avoid the micro-management of the people's "pursuance of happiness" or a business's ability to establish itself, create jobs, generate wealth, and contribute to the community it serves.

The formation of a separate "environmental" committee does not serve any public purpose or promote any public good. It is not within the purview of government's limited mandate which does not include education. Though government may encourage it, it is ill equipped to conduct it. All too frequently, government sponsored and funded education morphs over time into one-sided propaganda where real debate and critical thinking are discouraged and the more libertarian minded are told to shut up and sit down.

The second observation of those meetings is this: It was noted by the Democrat party leader in the township that we are entering the political campaign season and further that people run for and serve in public office because they care deeply about their communities and neighbors. That is perhaps more true on the local level, however we have seen the disastrous effects at the state and federal levels of what happens when what may have once been well intentioned citizen legislators evolve into professional career politicians protected by gerrymandered districts and funded by powerful lobbyists. They lose complete touch with the reasons they may have sought office initially, the people they were elected to serve, and instead become rulers dispensing mandates to individuals and business alike.

This is wholly antithetical to our founders intentions to form a system that would uphold natural rights, where the individual was the sovereign, and the several states were superior to a central government, itself birthed by the States, and restrained by the Bill of Rights.

My purpose for attending any public meeting is to occasionally remind those temporarily elected to serve the public, regardless of party affiliation, that they work for and at the pleasure of the public. That they swore oaths of office to the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of PA - not to "case law."  I seek to stand on the side of the individual and free enterprise, and against the utopian notion that for our own good, or in the interests of public safety, all human behavior and all capitalistic commercial pursuits must be controlled down to the minutia of small print to protect against all possible risks of injury or failure associated with daily life or business competition.

Given all of the huge issues we confront at all levels of government, I will not sit idly by while debates rage on the process of what date the deck chairs on a sinking ship will be rearranged as the citizenry and private enterprise is either bankrupted through taxation or discouraged by regulation to the point they just give up and take their investment capital for development where it will be welcomed rather than harassed at the very time it is generating the revenue so coveted by government.

As Thomas Jefferson once said: "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

In conclusion, and on a personal note, this writer is not running for any office nor seeking any particular notoriety. As a citizen of this township, this Commonwealth, and this Country, I seek only honest respectful debate and intend to question any argument by either party which rests on what I consider to be faulty premises, or that I think may be misleading or may misinform the people.

I am neither interested in the politics of personal destruction, nor will I be deterred from opining on the process and proper role of a limited and least intrusive government that is a servant of the people.

So happy Constitution Day fellow Americans and Pennsylvanians.  Finally, I am reminded of this brief exchange between Ben Franklin outside Independence Hall so many years ago when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."