A step toward tyranny

The recent comments by Barbara Hill of Clean Power Now, relative to the Cape Cod Commission, were dismaying. As one of the founding members of Clean Power Now, I thought the suggestions of bribery were inappropriate at best.

However, her comments were not just inappropriate, but way off the mark. Indeed, I wonder if anyone — even Ms. Hill — really understands the root of the frustration behind her words. The commission's decision to deny the Cape Wind permit was wrong, not necessarily because Cape Wind is right, but because this local government entity decided — on its own — that it could extend its jurisdiction and authority to federal waters.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. Those who serve in government, be they elected or appointed, often serve because they want to fix or change something.

However, not every government entity has jurisdiction over everything, so there are times when individual desires reach the ends of government power. Very simply, government has limits that not everyone recognizes or respects.

During my tenure on the Falmouth Conservation Commission, there were some commissioners who wanted to restrict the size of the boats that could be tied to docks. It wasn't an unreasonable idea since, in the long run, the boat can cause more damage to the environment than the dock itself. However, the regulations don't allow this. It wasn't within our authority to control the size of boats, but some commissioners still tried.

These situations happen from the outside as often as from the inside, and there are times when the public asks government to go beyond its bailiwick. In 2003, a group in Falmouth was concerned about the constitutionality of the USA PATRIOT Act. They sponsored a town meeting article, which according to its title, was intended to, "...Defend The Constitution of The United States."

Ironically, had that article passed, Falmouth would've been in violation of the Constitution, usurping the only branch of government with the authority to decide the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress — the federal courts.

This time around, Falmouth had an article which requested that, "Congress set goals to end the occupation of Iraq." It was not as openly defiant as that Patriot Act article, but the same principle applied. The proponents were unhappy with what Congress has (or has not) done, so they wanted town meeting to do something. The fact that town meeting has no authority to fund the war or command the troops seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.

According to the dictionary, tyranny is the "arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power." The authors of the Constitution understood that the best way to prevent tyranny was to keep one person or group from holding all the cards, so this document — indeed, every level of our government — enshrines principles such as federalism and separation of power.

Unless we adhere to those principles, the Constitution is only a piece of paper. "We the people" created our government, and grant it the power to govern. We must make sure that government walks the straight and narrow. Whether it's intentional or accidental, when we encourage any part of government to step beyond its limits for any reason we are dishonoring the efforts and achievements of our founding fathers and encouraging tyranny.

Regardless of how you feel about Cape Wind, if you cheered the decision by the Cape Cod Commission, you were cheering tyranny, and that is more dismaying than anything anyone could say.

(This post also appeared in the Wednesday, November 28, 2007 Cape Cod Times as an op-ed . Readers of the Cape Cod Times have left comments there.)