I wonder if anyone ever thinks about why we have all these laws?

Let’s just expand a little on my entry about the continuing expansion of federal control over our lives. In the first post we looked at trying to analyze if we as citizens wanted to support or oppose a new federal law, rule or regulation.

Now let’s talk about the motivation of the government, or more correctly the people within the government for purposing a new law. You can’t really be sure what some individual member of congress might be thinking when they put forward a new law. Even their stated reasoning might be hidden or clouded by political rhetoric. I think there might be only three reasons a new law or regulation would be brought up.

It helps the government better carry out its constitutional duties.

The Patriot Act might be a good example of this. After totally missing a large group of people in this and other countries planning to fly airplanes into buildings the federal government though it was too restricted in carrying out proper intelligence gathering. The congress passes a law to help the government do a better job. (As a side note the liberals cried like babies about the end of democracy when a Republican president signed the law but have been completely silent when a Democrat President continues it. But liberal hypocrisy is a topic for a week of blogs.)

Buying votes.

The recent bailout to state governments (called a jobs bill by the left) that was passed this week could be a fine example. The same week the federal government slashes over 7000 defense jobs it hands out 26 billion to states to mostly pay school teachers. Maybe I am just paranoid but that sure looks like a payoff to the teachers union, especially when you decrease food stamps to pay for it, (well that and the usual tax increases.)

It pushes some social agenda the person thinks is important.

This is the area that includes the most un-constitutional and anti liberty laws. Most are written by well intending government officials who forget the famous quote “the road to hell is paved with good intensions”. Some group of people is suffering some real or imagined social injustice, in rides the federal government to right the wrong. The problem here is the federal government has no money except the money it has taken from the citizens. So now we have the federal government taking money from Peter to give to Paul, as if Paul deserves that money more than Peter who earned it. No matter how well meaning or even successful a program there can be no constitutional defense of this wealth transfer of citizens personal property.

How can anyone indorse this? Who wants to trust some person in Washington to decide who keeps their income and who does not? What is to stop the majority (say lower to middle class citizens) from voting themselves all the property of the minority (say the rich)? The constitution was the instrument that was written expressly to protect the citizens and states from the federal government and protect the minority from the majority. This sadly has apparently been forgotten.