Are We a Nation of Laws?  Or Just "SOME" Laws?

Don A. Bright               

A common phrase used by the advocates of more and more government is that each new curtailment of individual freedom is necessary “for the greater common good”.  On the surface, it would seem that anything that is touted as an amelioration of some perceived impediment to the “common good” is automatically a good thing and we have come to accept this as fact.  But is it?   

Scrutiny of this question is impossible without first defining the true meaning of “greater” and “common”. In the first place the word “greater” is in the comparative mode and can, therefore, not be used grammatically to describe “common”.  The dictionary provides us with this definition of common:  “Belonging equally to or shared equally by two or more; joint: common interests. b. Of or relating to the community as a whole; public: for the common good.”  I find no real commonality in the above definitions, so I ask the question, is there any definitive meaning to the phrase “for the common good”?  The only answer to that question is that the phrase must be placed in the context of its referencing to be defined properly.  In this case we are looking at the proper application of the word “common” in a political reference.

When first we set forth the limited powers and duties of our new government we came as close to defining a “common good” as is possible in political endeavors. And it was the intention of the constructors of our Constitution to mean the more definitive word “universal” and not one so ambiguous as “common”.  Listen to some of the language used in writing the preamble to our contract with our political leaders:  

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (Emphasis added)    

Further reading of the Bill of Rights provides us with additional evidence of the premise that we granted power to the government to be exercised only in a universal way.  All ten amendments in the Bill of Rights demand from our elected leaders that all endeavors on their part be exercised in a manner and method that recognizes no exceptions to individuals or groups.   

The first amendment does not grant the government the power to interfere with speech by certain individuals and not to others.  Nor have we given the government the power to prevent, promote or recognize one individual’s practice of religion over that of another individual.  The second amendment prohibits the government from disarming any individual or group of individuals.  (It does NOT, as some would like us to believe, provide an added power to the government to be the only societal entity to own weapons.  The idea that only government controlled “militias” can carry certain arms is patently false.  Why would an amendment in our Bill of Rights – the sole purpose of which is to designate and protect individual rights and LIMIT government activity over those individual rights – be meant to EXPAND government activity and limit individual rights?) 

Other demonstrative evidence is ubiquitive throughout the Bill of Rights. “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house” does not say “some soldiers” or “some houses”.  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,…” does not say “selected” people.  “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” does not say in “some” criminal prosecutions or “some” accused.  Nor does it say “or a judge” instead of a jury.  “The right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States…” does not say the right of a trial by jury of “some” citizens “may or may not” be preserved or “some” fact tried by a jury reexamined in “some” cases.  “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” does not say to “some” people. 

It is grandly evident to me that government actions must be limited to what is truly meant by our found fathers as “We the People”…not “a few of us” or “with some exceptions” or “those selected by the government”. 

When the government sets out to write rules or laws to further a minority’s goals at the expense of the rights of “some” it is operating outside of the law.   

For instance, when the government takes the property rights from “some” citizens and grants certain rights to a special interest such as the Sierra Club or the Nature Conservancy it is not acting for the common good, it is breaking the law.  When a municipal government ignores the property rights of “some” and uses its police power to transfer those rights to “some others” it is operating outside the law and not promoting the common good. 

When the government sets an excessive bail for an individual because the government does not approve of the legal activities of that individual it is violating its collective oath to protect the Constitution and is not acting in behalf of the common good. 

When the government subjects a citizen to a trial by a judge and not a trial by a jury it is acting unlawfully and is certainly not promoting the general welfare. 

I will conclude with this:  The meaning of “the common good” can be quite confusing when one relies on a dictionary.  Therefore the phrase must be placed in the context of its referencing.  It must, then, be concluded that in reference to the “common good” of the citizens of the United States all governments included under that description must act in a way that is universal and not selective.   

We are not a nation of “some” laws.