|
Absolute monarchies are those
in which all power is given to or, as is more often the case, taken by,
the monarch. Examples of absolute power corrupting are Roman emperors
(who declared themselves gods) and Napoleon Bonaparte (who declared
himself an emperor).
"Absolute power corrupts
absolutely" arose as part of a quotation by the expansively named and
impressively hirsute John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron
Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known
simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop
Mandell Creighton in 1887:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
The text is a favourite of
collectors of quotations and is always included in anthologies. If you
are looking for the exact "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely" wording, then Acton is your man. He didn't invent
the idea though; quotations very like it had been uttered by several
authors well before 1887. Primary amongst them was another English
politician with no shortage of names - William Pitt the Elder, Earl of
Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, who said something
similar in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770:
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"
Acton is likely to have taken
his lead from the writings of the French republican poet and politician,
again a generously titled individual - Alphonse Marie Louis de Prat de
Lamartine. An English translation of Lamartine's essay France and
England: a Vision of the Future was published in London in 1848 and
included this text:
It is not only the slave or
serf who is ameliorated in becoming free... the master himself did not
gain less in every point of view,... for absolute power corrupts the
best natures.
Whether it is Lamartine or his
anonymous English translator that can claim to have coined 'absolute
power corrupts' we can't be sure, but we can be sure that it wasn't Lord
Acton.
Editorial Comment
Whenever
the too much power is concentrated into the hands too few individuals a
situation exists that leads to tyranny. When power is diffused over
many the potential for the abuse of power is greatly diminished. Is
justice likely to take place in a society where 9 lawyers appointed by
the President and confirmed by a Senate have the ultimate authority to
decide what is right and what is wrong.
The
power of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution
was not granted to it in the Constitution. The Supreme Court was given
the task to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In 1803 Chief
Justice John Marshall in the Marybury versus Madison decision declared
that the Supreme Court had the lawful authority to be the final arbiter
of the Constitution. This power was not delegated to the court, it was
an implied power.
This
unauthorized assumption of power has led to the concentration of power
into to the hands of Justices that are not accountable to anyone. If the
Supreme Court makes a mistake, who is there to prevent a miscarriage of
justice? If they people are sovereign then the people should be the
ones to decide what is just and what is unjust. Since we live in a
Republic the spokesmen for "We the People" is the County Sheriff. When
the Sheriff takes office he or she swears to uphold the Constitution.
How is it possible for a Sheriff to honor his oath when he is subject to
the authority of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment