This website uses cookies to improve your experience.

Please enable cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website

Sign the petition

to call for a

Convention of States!

signatures

The Power and Jurisdiction: A History of Limited Government in America

Published in Blog on May 14, 2024 by Jakob Fay

Convention of States is a nationwide grassroots movement that aims to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials through an Article V convention. While our efforts to enact fiscal restraints (i.e., a balanced budget amendment) and term limits are straightforward and self-explanatory, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government is, admittedly, more vague. In this series, we will examine the history of limited government in America, beginning at the Founding Era, and how it translates to our need for limited government today.

The Dawn of an Empire

We must acknowledge from the outset: delving into America’s founding invariably highlights the Founders’ profound commitment to limited government. Their every action, from breaking away from Great Britain to formulating the new nation’s governing charter, appears to have been meticulously crafted with this principle in focus. Any interpretation of the Founding falls short if it fails to recognize that constraining and distributing principle as a cornerstone of the revolution.

This should clearly be seen in the text of the Declaration of Independence, which laid out “a long train of abuses and usurpations” that threatened to “reduce [the American colonies] under absolute Despotism.” This litany of grievances took aim at “the present King of Great Britain” and his egregious war on self-government: while King George held monarchical power, the colonists also laid claim to the “rights of Englishmen,” guaranteed to them by the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights—rights which they claimed the king had suppressed. Moreover, they had grown used to governing themselves and begun to chafe at the distant elites’ obsessive drive for control. Time, space, and contemporary ideals about natural rights led them to question whether the antiquated monarchy still satisfied the needs of the increasingly self-reliant, self-made Americans.

They accused the Crown, among other indictments, of, “abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies,” of “taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments….” They censured him “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever” and “declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.”

In other words, the king had overstepped his bounds—he had threatened the Americans’ prized propensity for governing themselves and, in so doing, incensed them to take action against him. Contrary to reductive allegations that the revolution was, ultimately, all about teas and taxes, it was, in reality, about what those teas and taxes represented: the monarch’s freedom-crushing quest for perfect supremacy. Therefore, it follows that the architects of the uprising against the king would not only be wary of any whiff of overly concentrated power but also enact deliberate measures to ensure that power remained within the hands of the people.

A century and a half later, in 1926, President Calvin Coolidge summarized the people-centric thrust of the revolution thusly:

“We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies…. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility…. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.”

He continued, noting that those who penned the Declaration were obedient “to the wishes of their constituents,” revealing “an orderly process of government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land” [emphasis added].

Why did such a distinction matter? Notably, Coolidge's speech followed nine years on the heels of a certain October Revolution, which, under the alleged auspices of “the people,” seized power and control for a suspiciously unilateral cabal of comrades who wasted little time in unleashing acts of a questionable democratic nature (for example, the “Red Terror”). Although Communist propagandists would have us believe that the Russian Revolution, particularly, the Bolshevik Revolution, represented “the movement of a people,” history suggests it partook “of dark intrigue [and] hidden conspiracy.” Coolidge reassured his listeners that the American Revolution was not that kind of revolution.

Indeed, historically, revolutions have often gone awry. Perhaps the American iteration succeeded, among other factors, because it insisted that the rules of “limited government” apply to the revolutionaries themselves. Men like George Washington, the American Cincinnatus, would see to it that this happened—even if it meant refusing offers of power for himself.

It was the advent of a timeless American tradition—one in which not even the leaders, the so-called “elite,” were unshackled from the bounds of a limited government. Such ideas were imbued into the very fiber of our nation—present from July 4, 1776.

To be continued…

To support this cornerstone of the American Republic and our grassroots efforts to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, sign the Convention of States petition below.

Sign the petition to call for an Article V convention!

2,595,557 signatures

Petition your state legislator

Almost everyone knows that our federal government is on a dangerous course. The unsustainable debt combined with crushing regulations on states and businesses is a recipe for disaster.

What is less known is that the Founders gave state legislatures the power to act as a final check on abuses of power by Washington, DC. Article V of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the state legislatures to call a convention to proposing needed amendments to the Constitution. This process does not require the consent of the federal government in Washington DC.

I support Convention of States; a national movement to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.

I want our state to be one of the necessary 34 states to pass a resolution calling for this kind of an Article V convention. You can find a copy of the model resolution and the Article V Pocket Guide (which explains the process and answers many questions) here: https://conventionofstates.com/handbook_pdf

I ask that you support Convention of States and consider becoming a co-sponsor. Please respond to my request by informing the national COS team of your position, or sending them any questions you may have:

info@conventionofstates.com or (540) 441-7227.

Thank you so much for your service to the people of our district.

Respectfully, [Your Name]

By checking this box, you agree to receive text messages sent via an “autodialer”. Our text messages are intended to inform you of events, calls to action, volunteering opportunities, and other matters pertaining to self-governance. Text STOP to stop receiving messages. Text HELP for more info. Message frequency varies. Message and data rates may apply. View Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Provide your full address and we will deliver your petition directly to your state legislators now and again during the legislative sessions, Free of Charge. We Protect your privacy.

We welcome all US citizens to support our movement by signing the petition. To deliver the petition to your state legislators, you must enter your full address, which must be within one of the 50 states. For military personnel serving overseas, or for expatriates, enter your Voting Residence Address .

Please be sure to check the "Send me email updates" box, and include your phone number above.

How did you hear about us:

 

Click here to get involved!
Convention of states action

Are you sure you don't want emailed updates on our progress and local events? We respect your privacy, but we don't want you to feel left out!

Processing...