government

This is puzzling to an outsider conscious of the classic tradition of liberalism, because it is clear that these Democrats who are left-of-center are at opposite poles from the liberal Jefferson, who held that the best government was the least government.

Why, in the first place, call himself a liberal if he is against laissez-faire and favors an authoritarian central government with womb-to-tomb controls over everybody??

In what has aptly been called a `` constitutional revolution '', the basic nature of government was transformed from one essentially negative in nature ( the `` night-watchman state '' ) to one with affirmative duties to perform.

Thirty years ago, while the nation was wallowing in economic depression, the prevailing philosophy of government was to stand aside and allow `` natural forces '' to operate and cure the distress.

less than a score of years later Congress enacted the Employment Act of 1946, by which the national government assumed the responsibility of taking action to insure conditions of maximum employment.

The Rule of Law, historically a principle according everyone his `` day in court '' before an impartial tribunal, was broadened substantively by making it a responsibility of government to promote individual welfare.

That is particularly true of sovereignty when it is applied to democratic societies, in which `` popular '' sovereignty is said to exist, and in federal nations, in which the jobs of government are split.

Others are confined to vast reservations, and not only does the Australian government justifiably not wish them to be viewed as exhibits in a zoo, but on their reservations they are extremely fugitive, shunning camps, coming together only for corroborees at which their strange culture comes to its highest pitch -- which is very low indeed.

Author of the Albany Plan Of Union, which, had it been adopted, might have avoided the Revolution, he fought the colonists' front-line battles in London, negotiated the treaty of alliance with France and the peace that ended the war, headed the state government of Pennsylvania, and exercised an important moderating influence at the Federal Convention.

Historians have traditionally regarded the great debates of the Seventeen Nineties as polarizing the issues of centralized vs. limited government, with Hamilton and the nationalists supporting the former and Jefferson and Madison upholding the latter position.

This right of the State, its upholders contended, was essential to maintain the federal balance and protect the liberty of the people from the danger of centralizing power in the Union government.

Dictionaries, as we have seen, still cite this government, along with the Articles of Confederation of 1781, as an example of a confederacy.

The one of 1861 made clear that in making their government the people were acting through their states, whereas the Preamble of 1787-89 expressed, as clearly as language can, the opposite concept, that they were acting directly as citizens.

`` We the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity -- invoking the favor and the guidance of Almighty God -- do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America ''.

He fought to the end to preserve it as a `` government of the people, by the people, for the people ''.

Consitutional government, popular vote, trial by jury, public education, labor unions, cooperatives, communes, socialized ownership, world courts, and the veto power in world councils are but a few examples.

To guard against the tyranny of a numerical majority, Calhoun developed his theory of `` concurrent majority '', which, he said, `` by giving to each portion of the community which may be unequally affected by the action of government, a negative on the others, prevents all partial or local legislation ''.

The first of which to find important place in our federal government was the graduated income tax under Wilson.

Hence government must establish greater controls upon corporations so that their activities promote what is deemed essential to the national interest.

When the proprietor dies, the establishment should become a corporation until it is either acquired by another proprietor or the government decides to drop it.

Strikes should be declared illegal against corporations because disagreements would have to be settled by government representatives acting as controllers of the corporation whose responsibility to the state would now be defined against proprietorship because employees and proprietors must be completely interdependent, as they are each a part of the whole.

Anyone who tried to remedy some of the most glaring defects in our form of democracy was denounced as a traitorous red whose real purpose was the destruction of our government.

We are reminded, however, that freedom of thought and discussion, the unfettered exchange of ideas, is basic under our form of government.

The pamphlets are about law, the corporation, forms of government, the idea of freedom, the defense of liberty, the various lethargies which overtake our major institutions, the gap between traditional social ideals and the working mechanisms that have been set in motion for their realization.