Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision |
| documents:external:restoring_rule_of_law [2016/07/27 18:27] – [B. Objections to an Article V Convention Lack Merit] Oliver Wolcott | documents:external:restoring_rule_of_law [2020/02/18 23:56] – Oliver Wolcott |
|---|
| |
| |
| *Our Nation was built on one principle above all others—the Rule of Law. As James Madison explained in the //Federalist//: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." ((The Federalist No. 51, at 322 (Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed. 1961) [hereinafter "THE FEDERALIST"].)) As the Founders envisioned it, //the rule of law //offered the solution to that great difficulty: the law could check the ambitions of men who were far from angels, and the law could moderate the excesses of governments that were far from benevolent. | Our Nation was built on one principle above all others—the Rule of Law. As James Madison explained in the //Federalist//: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." ((The Federalist No. 51, at 322 (Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed. 1961) [hereinafter "THE FEDERALIST"].)) As the Founders envisioned it, //the rule of law //offered the solution to that great difficulty: the law could check the ambitions of men who were far from angels, and the law could moderate the excesses of governments that were far from benevolent. |
| | |
| |
| But far from dissuading the effort to amend our Constitution, Henry's words should encourage it. The benefits of the Texas Plan are many because any change effectuated by an assembly of the people will force the federal government— whether in big ways or small—to take the Constitution seriously again. And the downsides of such an assembly are virtually nonexistent, given that any change to our Constitution's text requires such overwhelming nationwide support. The only true downside comes from doing nothing and allowing the federal government to continue ignoring the very document that created it. | But far from dissuading the effort to amend our Constitution, Henry's words should encourage it. The benefits of the Texas Plan are many because any change effectuated by an assembly of the people will force the federal government— whether in big ways or small—to take the Constitution seriously again. And the downsides of such an assembly are virtually nonexistent, given that any change to our Constitution's text requires such overwhelming nationwide support. The only true downside comes from doing nothing and allowing the federal government to continue ignoring the very document that created it. |
| |
| | {{page>:wiki_footer}} |
| ===== END NOTES ===== | ===== END NOTES ===== |
| |
| \\ | \\ |
| ======================= | ======================= |
