On a recent trip to the Washington D.C. area, I was listening to a local talk show host interviewing Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States. They were talking about a bill making it's way through Congress that would make it a Federal crime to be a spectator of, take a child to, or organize dog fights. This is The Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act (H.R. 2492). introduced by Reps. Tom Marino, (R-PA) and Betty Sutton (D-OH).
Sounds like a good cause, right? I agree. Dog fighting is a horrendous activity that should be stopped. Pictures of animals who have been involved in dog fights (like the one above) sicken me. And, the host and Mr. Pacelle both agreed that most people want to see it ended. In fact, they speculated that this bill would pass with almost unanimous support. After all, who would disagree with the cause of stopping such a terrible crime? And that, in a nut shell, is the problem. A good cause...yes. A good law...no.
When people see something that is wrong, an injustice, they want to see it righted. They look to government to pass a law. That is generally how our representative republic works. The problems is, most of our fellow citizens have no idea of how our governments are supposed to operate...the divisions of power designed into the Constitution. They also do not understand or, sadly, don't care about the principles behind our founding documents. Dog fighting is clearly a State issue. It is not, in any way, an enumerated power of the Federal government. And, in fact, according to a Humane Society of the United States report, all 50 States have laws concerning dog fighting.
So, you may ask, what makes the difference if it is a State or Federal law? It's a very good cause, you say, it needs all the help it can get. It is that attitude from our general citizenry that has brought us to the situation in which we now find ourselves. It has lead to our behemoth, highly centralized, bloated and corrupt Federal government. This mind set has given us out-of control bureaucrats who believe that only they know best and that they have unlimited power.
In the early days of our country, most citizens, being highly suspicious of centralized power, resisted efforts of the Federal government to take more power unto itself. The Constitution was debated among those who wanted a very limited Federal government (the "Federalists") and those who wanted an even more limited Federal government (the "Anti-Federalists"). They saw highly centralized and powerful governments as a clear danger to the liberties of the citizenry. In contrast, today our citizens seem in a rush to push more and more power to the Federal government. They see a good cause, a perceived injustice, or just something that makes them mad and they say, "Why, there outta be a law." And they expect the Federal government to do something.
This trend of looking to the Federal government has grown and accelerated since the early 20th century. And now, though polls show that most voters (71%) believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, they have no idea how we got here or what to do to fix it. They do not understand that the founding documents were designed to decentralize governmental power...for good reason. As James Madison stated in Federalist 47, “The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” And, as Thomas Jefferson explained, " The way to have a safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to [perform best]. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with local concerns of the counties, and each ward [township] direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all of its subordinates, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."
So, a good cause does not necessarily make for a good law...especially when that law gives more power to the Federal government. Certainly it is easier to deal with one national legislature than 50 State governments, and that is a big reason why causes of national scope are taken to the U. S. Congress. But this does not make it right...or constitutional. In taking this easy way, even for causes we are passionate about, we cede a little more of our liberty every time...we hasten the growth of what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as a "soft tyranny" in our country.
We need a new, or should I really say renewed, paradigm; one that allows us to champion good and noble causes, but makes liberty part of the cause. We should pursue legal remedies only when absolutely necessary and seek them only to the lowest level of government which is proper. And, keeping the founding principles in mind, never sacrifice one good for another.
