🚀 go-pugleaf

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>In article <1992Oct2.162504.6834@netcom.com>, barry@netcom (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>>Does the Constitution give a monopoly of interpretation to the Supreme Court?
>>
>>	Pragmatically speaking, yes.

>>	The Constitution does not give this right to the Court
>>explicitly, but the Court asserted the right back in the 1830s, and has
>>hung onto it.

>That seems like a "no" to me.

Then you don't understand how this -- and every other -- government works.

Any right asserted by a government (or any branch or agency thereof) that
is unchallenged is thus *automatically* accrued. If it is challenged only
at a subsequent time in history, that challenge will typically be dead-on-
arrival. Possession is, after all nine-tenths of the law. And this applies
most *especially* to government powers.

To take a case in point: the city of Washington D.C. was set aside as the
seat of national government in the U.S. Beyond that (literal) swamp meas-
uring a very small number of square miles, the national government owned
outright no real property. Nor would it have occurred to anyone living at
that time that it had either the right nor the need to do so. Indeed, the
District of Columbia was, for many years a virtual wasteland occupied by
a few central buildings constructed out of wood and calling it a "city"
was more a courtesy than an observation based on fact.

Can you say "National Parks" or "National Forests"? Today, the Federal
government *owns* over half of some Western States, and major chunks of
many others. As in the case of the former Soviet Union, this claim has
been asserted in the name of "the people". Over the years, this accrual
has increased. This has put our government in the position of being the
largest single property-owner in the territorial U.S.

With a presumable option on the balance to be exercised whenever the
Congress may bloody well choose.

This did not occur because of some Constitutional provision suggesting
such an intent. It happened because the right was asserted and no one
effectively opposed it. And it is no longer a matter for debate.
 
[ Much as the income tax was presented as a tax only on the upper income
groups, and would "never" exceed ten percent. Or Social Security, which
was promoted as (and in the early years *was*) a trivial sum of money,
but which now (according to Senator Moynahan) costs the low-income U.S.
worker *more* even than the income tax. And that ignores the fact that
the employer must pay a matching amount. Now we have fools who wander
about the land telling us that Americans don't pay "enough" taxes! And
just how much is "enough", do you suppose? *All*? ]

The humerous part is that there have been recent suggestions that the
government settle the national debt (created by ever-expanding subsidy
of whatever noble idea some politician might dream up to keep himself
in office at any cost) by selling off this land -- to which it arguably
had no constitutionally valid entitlement to expropriate in the first
instance. But this question is long-since rendered moot.

How does this square with Jefferson's remark that "The least government
is the best government"? And *what* do you suppose prompted him to say
that?

Rights and powers which accrue to government over time can typically
only be taken back under the sword or the threat of it. King John did
not give up his "rights" in Magna Carta because of a sudden urge to
divest the Crown of excessive power in the sweet name of "good govern-
ment". Nor has any other tyrant -- individual or collective -- acted
upon such an instinct, so contrary to its own personal interests.

The great danger in allowing government power to swell over time is
that some generation will be faced at some time with the compelling
necessity to "hang all the lawyers", and only because prior generations
refused to face facts. Jefferson -- and Santayana -- were right.

And a little Thomas Paine might be a good introduction to the real
world, then and now.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!