Celia Green, writing about recent changes with regard to the U.K.'s approach to meddling with children, says this:
The reaction that a situation will be improved by more people being involved in oppressing the individual is a standard one. People often refer to the concept of ‘checks and balances’ as if that made intervention/interference all right in principle.
Yep. The more folks involved, the more likely one of them is fine with coercion and will, through the offices of whatever sanctioned structure there is, employ coercion upon you. We are told to be terribly afraid of the random evil person- usually a father, who is somehow oppressive, and we are told that we need a great apparatus of state power in order to handle these people. Meanwhile, the apparatus of the state, in centralizing power into the hands of bureaucrats, establishes a greater certainty of oppression. Who's going to be attracted to the field? Clearly those who enjoy coercing others and not those who find such things distasteful.
Meanwhile, our version of 'checks and balances' obviously suffers from a severe design flaw. The Supreme Court did little more than blink on the GM bankruptcy deal, which was to be expected, I guess, since they've let all these other things go through. The reason they aren't a check on the executive branch is that the executive's grabs for power enlarge their purveiw as well, which is why the Congress isn't a good check on the Supreme Court either. As long as they grab for power in a way that enlarges the federal government's powers as a whole, they get away with it.
There should be several constitutional cases based on the actions of both Bush and Obama with regard to the economic crises alone. I take this as a given- most actions taken by the federal government are unconstitutional. To hammer on every single one of them would be very painstaking and probably quite boring.
I am, however, afraid that too many people are ignorant. The 'yes, we can' crowd don't appear willing to look at any reference material in order to see whether or not they ought.