Musings

by Mike Ceremello

Jan 13, 2005

CHALLENGED PERCEPTIONS

Have you ever felt that the reality of living in Dixon, or any other part of America, fails to meet your public school expectations given what you were taught?  While basics such as arithmetic and reading and writing skills may have adequately met your basic needs for participating in our society, logic and government classes dictate that “perception isn’t reality”.  With that said, I give you some thoughts to ponder for the next week.

In these times of declining respect for government and the politicians who serve it, it is important to look back at the intentions of those who created the backbone of the rules that define our country.  While the Declaration of Independence outlines grievances against King George III of Great Britain, it also defines the founders’ belief in freedom of the individual whose rights are given “unalienably” by a higher authority than government.

Having spoken many times in the council chamber reiterating these principles, it appears that they seem to have, for the most part, fallen on deaf ears.  Seeing a new council in place, wisdom dictates that another reminder needs to be given.

The following are excerpts from a column recently published in the Investor’s Business Daily on the editorial page.  Walter Williams is a frequent contributor and qualified as not only a professor but as an astute commentator on current social aspects of our society.

“We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy.  That wasn’t the vision of the Founding Fathers. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny.

“If we’ve become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision.  The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

“The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution – the two most fundamental documents of our nation.”

While Williams questions politics and policies on the Federal level, they are applicable to the State and, by deduction, to city government as our root form of governance.

“Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, guarantees ‘to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.’ ”

Williams asks, “So what’s the difference between republican and democratic forms of government?”  This is an absolutely fantastic question that goes straight to the heart of what is wrong with our governments on all levels.

Williams continues:

“John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, ‘You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.’

“Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights.  Instead, government is a protector of rights.

“In recognition that it is Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied.

“In a republican form of government, there is a rule of law.  All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws.  Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances.  Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.”

The heart of the problem can be paraphrased by that adage, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  This is addressed and expounded on by Williams in the following.

“Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy.  In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives.

“As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be.  Laws do not represent reason.  They represent power. (Emphasis added) The restraint is upon the individual instead of government.  Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.”

The following are two quotes from the people of the time.  Their applicability to the present day and circumstances locally are obvious.

“James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, ‘there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.’

Chief Justice John Marshall observed, ‘Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.’ ”

Finally, Williams sums up his thoughts with the following question and remark.

“Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy?

“Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do?

“I fear it is the latter.”

This column was slightly altered to address the Dixon City Council’s proclivity toward the tyranny of the masses also known as democracy during the public comment portion of yesterday’s council meeting.

If you think that these conclusions don’t hold water, all one has to do is look at the ordinances that have been proposed and passed in this town to see the validity of the argument against democracy and for the rule of law.  It is not your right as the entire town’s duly elected representatives to legislate individual rights or privileges, despite the city attorney’s opinion to the contrary 

A case in point was last night’s agenda item from City Manager Warren Salmons, with tacit approval from City Attorney Michael Dean, that another constitutionally guaranteed right be regulated, that of addressing your representatives.  The city staff now wants to limit or force disclosure of input from all sources that might influence a “quasi-judicial” hearing.  One option offered was to forbid it.  What part of “shall not abridge” do they not understand?

Aside from this being impossible to enforce, as I know how reluctant the vice mayor was to admit his “boss” statement or clarify to whom he was referring, it will just create more complexity where none is needed.  There is nothing that precludes an official from stating with whom they have spoken.  Further, there are no teeth to this resolution as there are no penalties for not conforming to it.

Rather, it gives the false sense of security that has become the trademark of the Courville regime. Just trust us as we lie to you again and again, then we deny that they are lies when you catch us.

Randomly enforced ordinances, ordinances created to address specific individuals, rules put in place to stifle individual participation in the local government process all fly in the face of what we, as citizens of Dixon and the United States, should expect.  The Council’s job is not to create more rules to force us to do what we would not choose, but, contrarily, to repeal onerous provisions of public code and make it easier to conduct our private and business lives.

Dixon would be a far better place to live and do business without big brother watching over us.  We have a new council.  Want to bet that they will do things the same way they have always been done?  Not a fair bet as I already have three aces up my sleeve: Ferrero, Vega, and Courville.

Let’s hope that Alexander and Smith turn out to be the wild cards for change...