Town Meeting is Wrong Forum for Article 42

Four years ago, some folks sponsored an article in town meeting which, according to its title, was intended to, "...Defend The Constitution of The United States." However, it was the article itself which threatened our constitution.

Our founding fathers understood that the best way to prevent tyranny was to keep one person from holding all the cards, so our constitution enshrines the principle of separation of power. For example, all government spending must originate in the House of Representatives, and those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states, or the people.

Had that article - a protest against the USA PATRIOT Act - passed, Falmouth would have usurped the authority of the federal courts - the only branch of government with the authority to decide the constitutionality of our laws. Fortunately, a majority of town meeting members recognized that fact and the article failed.

Now a group of people are again challenging our federal government in town meeting. Article 42 on the fall warrant, which requests that, "Congress set goals to end the occupation of Iraq," is not as openly defiant as that article about the USA PATRIOT Act, but the same principle is involved. The proponents are unhappy with Congress, so they're going to town meeting.

Back in 1776 when we were ruled by a king and had no representation in Parliament, petitions started in taverns and churches were the only way we could protest the latest infringement of our rights. However, we're not ruled by a king anymore. We have a variety of ways to redress grievances against our government today. If these folks haven't protested in front of Representative Delahunt's office every Saturday for the past year, or gathered signatures for a petition to Senator Kerry, they might consider these options.

Moreover, articles such as these put us on a slippery slope. Four years ago it was the USA PATRIOT Act, now it's the Iraq war. Town meeting has no authority to either fund the war or command the troops, yet this article will force us to debate this issue in town meeting. We may as well be debating illegal immigration. What's next? An article about mine safety?

While the proponents of Article 42 may mean well, town meeting is the wrong forum. This article adopts a revolutionary stance toward Congress and takes another swipe at the principles upon which our nation was founded.

(This post also appeared as guest commentary in the Thursday, November 1, 2007, issue of the Falmouth Bulletin.)