Chapter 36 — The Responsibility to Limit Power: A Free People Must Know What Government Cannot Do
A Weekly Devotional from The Founders’ Quill: Reclaiming America’s Judeo-Christian Heritage through Spirit and Truth.
Limited Government and Individual Responsibility
In our last chapter, we considered the responsibility to respect conscience. We discovered that liberty must extend beyond those who agree with us and that conviction, however sincerely held, does not grant us unlimited authority over another person's beliefs. We ended with a difficult question: If someone whose convictions differ from mine held the power I wish to exercise, would I still believe that power was just?
That question brings us to another responsibility that lies near the heart of the American experiment in ordered liberty. We must learn to distinguish between what government has the power to accomplish and what government possesses the rightful authority to do.
Americans have long debated the proper size, scope, and responsibilities of government. Those disagreements are neither surprising nor necessarily unhealthy. A free people should deliberate carefully about the powers entrusted to those who govern them. Yet beneath these debates lies a deeper question, one that cannot be answered simply by electing different leaders or passing different laws.
Are we willing to limit the power of government even when doing so prevents us from accomplishing something we personally desire?
That is a much more demanding question than whether we favor limited government in principle. It requires us to examine our own relationship with power, our willingness to accept restraint, and our tendency to believe that authority becomes less dangerous when exercised by people who share our convictions.
Scripture offers a remarkably honest account of this temptation. And the American Founders, who understood something of humanity's persistent weaknesses, attempted to construct a government capable of exercising necessary authority without becoming the master of the people it was created to serve.
The King We Asked For
The eighth chapter of 1 Samuel records a turning point in Israel's history. Samuel had grown old, and the sons he appointed as judges were corrupt. They pursued dishonest gain, accepted bribes, and perverted justice. The elders of Israel therefore approached Samuel with a demand: appoint a king to govern them like the surrounding nations.
Their concern was not entirely unreasonable. They had experienced failures in leadership. They wanted stability, protection, and a more predictable future. They looked at the nations around them and saw an arrangement that appeared to promise what they lacked.
But there was something profoundly troubling beneath their request.
God told Samuel that the people were not merely rejecting Samuel's leadership. They were rejecting the Lord as their king. Their demand revealed a misplaced confidence in human authority and a desire to become like the surrounding nations rather than remain faithful to their distinctive covenant relationship with God.
Nevertheless, God instructed Samuel to warn them about the kind of authority they were requesting. The warning was specific. Their king would claim their sons for military service and royal labor. He would take their daughters into his service. He would appropriate their fields, vineyards, and olive groves. He would demand portions of their produce and livestock, and the people would become servants of the very authority they had requested.
Throughout the passage, a repeated phrase gives Samuel's warning its unmistakable force: He will take.
The people wanted a king who would provide security. Samuel warned that the power they were requesting would make demands upon their families, property, labor, and freedom.
Yet they refused to listen.
“We want a king over us,” they insisted, so they could be like the other nations, with a king to lead them and fight their battles (1 Samuel 8:19–20 NIV).
Their determination is striking. They had heard the warning. They understood that the arrangement would come at a cost. But their desire for the promised benefits outweighed their concern about the consequences.
There is a lesson here that reaches far beyond ancient Israel.
We can become so focused upon what political power promises to accomplish that we fail to consider what it may eventually demand.
This passage should not be treated as a blanket condemnation of civil government. Israel's monarchy occupied a particular place in the history of God's covenant people, and Scripture elsewhere recognizes legitimate governing authority. Nor does Samuel's warning establish that taxation, military service, or every exercise of public power is inherently unjust.
The warning concerns the danger of entrusting extraordinary authority to human rulers while failing to reckon with the weaknesses of human nature.
And those weaknesses have not disappeared.
The Founders Understood Human Nature
When America's Founders considered how to establish a durable republic, they confronted a problem that every generation must face. Government is necessary because human beings are capable of injustice, selfishness, dishonesty, and violence. Yet the people who exercise governmental authority possess those same human weaknesses.
Who, then, will govern the governors?
James Madison addressed this problem in Federalist No. 51, published on February 8, 1788, during the debate over ratification of the proposed Constitution. In one of the most memorable observations of the Founding era, Madison wrote:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”¹
His point was not merely that human beings sometimes behave badly. It was that political institutions must be designed with a realistic understanding of human nature. Since neither the governed nor those who govern are angels, public authority must be both effective and restrained.
Madison explained that the great difficulty in framing government was that it must be enabled to control the governed while also being required to control itself.
That second responsibility is essential.
A government incapable of enforcing just laws cannot adequately protect its citizens. But a government possessing authority without meaningful restraints can become a danger to the very people it is supposed to protect.
Madison therefore defended a constitutional arrangement in which the different branches of government possessed both distinct responsibilities and means of resisting encroachments by the others. He understood that ambition could not simply be wished away. Institutional checks were necessary because the desire to acquire and exercise power is a recurring feature of human nature.
The Constitution's separation of powers, its division of authority between federal and state governments, and its protections for individual liberties reflected serious concerns about concentrated political authority. The Founders did not agree about every question concerning the proper scope of government, and the nation's early history reveals important failures to apply its professed principles consistently. Nevertheless, the constitutional framework embodied a conviction that remains indispensable: legitimate government must operate within limits.
Those limits are not signs of weakness.
They are safeguards against the predictable weaknesses of human beings. And they become especially important when we remember that the people exercising power will not always be the people we trust.
Power Is Not the Same as Authority
We often use the words power and authority as though they mean the same thing. They do not.
Power is the ability to accomplish something. Authority concerns the rightful permission or responsibility to do it.
A person may possess the power to take something that belongs to another without possessing the right to take it. A leader may have the practical ability to silence criticism without possessing legitimate authority to do so. A government may have the resources and administrative capacity to involve itself in nearly every aspect of daily life without necessarily possessing the constitutional or moral authority to exercise every available power.
The distinction is particularly important when the desired outcome appears good.
We may want stronger families, healthier communities, greater public morality, better education, economic security, and protection for those who are vulnerable. These are serious concerns deserving thoughtful attention.
But the desirability of an outcome does not, by itself, establish that every means of achieving it is legitimate.
Before asking whether government can accomplish something, we should ask whether the proposed action belongs within government's proper responsibilities, respects constitutional limitations, and preserves the legitimate rights and obligations of individuals and communities.
Christians should be especially prepared to make this distinction.
Jesus instructed His listeners to give Caesar what belonged to Caesar and God what belonged to God (Mark 12:17). His answer recognized legitimate civil obligations while refusing to grant Caesar ultimate authority over everything.
Paul likewise taught that governing authorities possess responsibilities in maintaining public order and restraining wrongdoing (Romans 13:1–7). Yet the apostles also demonstrated that obedience to God takes precedence when human authorities demand what faithfulness to God forbids (Acts 5:29).
Scripture therefore gives us neither an excuse for rejecting all government nor permission to regard government as unlimited. Civil authority has a rightful place.
But it is not God.
It is not the church.
It is not the family.
And it cannot assume every responsibility that belongs to the conscience and character of the individual.
When Our Side Holds the Power
Here we arrive at the uncomfortable part of the discussion.
Most Americans can identify examples of political power they believe have been abused. We can point to leaders who exceeded their authority, institutions that failed to remain accountable, or policies that intruded upon freedoms we consider essential.
But how consistently do we apply those concerns?
When leaders we oppose exercise expansive authority, we may suddenly become passionate defenders of constitutional restraints. We insist upon separation of powers, individual liberty, due process, accountability, and respect for the proper boundaries of government.
Yet when leaders who share our convictions gain office, those same restraints can begin to appear inconvenient. We may discover that we are comfortable with extraordinary executive action, sweeping administrative authority, or diminished institutional checks when we believe the resulting policies will advance a cause we support. The underlying danger has not changed. Only the identity of the person exercising power has changed.
This temptation is not confined to one political party or ideology. It arises from something more fundamental than partisan loyalty. We are inclined to trust those who agree with us and distrust those who do not. We are often more willing to recognize the danger of power when someone else possesses it than when it appears to serve our own purposes.
That is why constitutional principles must be more durable than political preferences.
If a particular exercise of power would alarm me when employed by a political opponent, I should carefully examine why I am prepared to defend it when employed by someone I support.
If I believe certain liberties must be protected, I must be willing to protect them when their exercise produces outcomes I dislike.
And if I believe government should remain within its lawful boundaries, I cannot abandon that conviction whenever those boundaries prevent a desired political victory.
A principle that restrains only our opponents is not much of a principle.
This is where the Founders' understanding of human nature meets the Christian responsibility of self-examination. The question is not simply whether our political leaders are exercising power responsibly. It is whether we are encouraging them to do so.
What Government Cannot Give Us
There is another danger in asking government to become more than government. Even when political authority acts within legitimate boundaries, there are certain things it cannot produce.
Government can establish laws against theft, but it cannot manufacture honesty within the human heart. It can punish acts of violence, but it cannot create genuine love for one's neighbor. It can protect religious liberty, but it cannot produce saving faith. It can establish public schools and support educational opportunity, but it cannot relieve families and communities of every responsibility for forming the character of the next generation.
These distinctions matter because human flourishing requires more than laws and institutions.
It requires people capable of exercising responsibility.
We have spent much of this series considering precisely those responsibilities. We have examined the importance of self-government, the formation of character within the home, the duties of neighbors, the obligations of citizenship, the pursuit of truth, the discipline of speech, and the freedom of conscience.
None of those responsibilities can be fully transferred to government.
A law may discourage certain destructive behaviors. It cannot make a selfish person generous. A public program may provide necessary assistance to someone in need. It cannot replace every expression of personal compassion and neighborly concern. Government may help establish conditions in which families and communities can flourish, but it cannot substitute for the daily faithfulness through which character is formed.
This does not mean public assistance is inherently wrong or that every government initiative diminishes personal responsibility. Wise public action can protect the vulnerable, address genuine needs, and strengthen the conditions under which individuals and communities fulfill their responsibilities.
The question is whether public authority is serving those responsibilities or gradually displacing them.
When citizens begin to regard government as the primary answer to every social and moral difficulty, they may become less attentive to the obligations that belong to them personally.
And when government assumes more and more responsibility for the ordinary work of families, churches, neighborhoods, and voluntary associations, those institutions may gradually lose the independence and habits of service that make a free society strong.
A healthy republic needs effective government.
But it also needs a society capable of doing many good things without waiting for government to do them.
The Responsibility We Cannot Surrender
The answer to excessive government power is not simply to demand that government do less.
It is to become a people willing to do what belongs to us.
If we want strong families, we must accept responsibility for strengthening our own families. If we want children to develop honesty, discipline, compassion, and moral courage, we must demonstrate and teach those virtues. If we want our communities to care for the lonely, the grieving, the poor, and the vulnerable, we must become neighbors willing to serve.
If we want religious liberty to flourish, our churches must be places where faith is taught faithfully, conscience is respected, and the gospel is proclaimed through both word and deed.
And if we want constitutional limitations to endure, we must become citizens willing to defend those limitations even when doing so is politically inconvenient.
This is not a call for indifference toward public life. Quite the opposite. Responsible citizens should remain informed, participate in elections, hold public officials accountable, advocate just laws, and engage thoughtfully in the work of self-government.
But they should do so with a clear understanding that political power is not the source of every good thing and cannot provide every answer.
The Christian understanding of human nature should make us both realistic and hopeful.
Realistic, because we know that human beings are susceptible to pride, ambition, selfishness, and the misuse of authority.
Hopeful, because we also believe that God's grace can transform the human heart, cultivate virtue, and enable people to live responsibly before God and one another.
The moral renewal of a nation cannot be accomplished merely by changing the people who occupy public office. It must also involve the renewal of the people who place them there.
That is why our recovery of ordered liberty must begin with ourselves.
The Warning We Still Need to Hear
Return once more to the people standing before Samuel.
They had a genuine problem. Their existing leaders had failed them. They wanted security, order, and protection from their enemies. They looked at the surrounding nations and believed a king would provide the answer.
Samuel warned them what the authority they requested would eventually demand.
But they insisted.
There is something deeply human in that moment. When we are frightened, frustrated, or convinced that something important must be accomplished, we can become impatient with limitations. We may begin to regard restraint as weakness and the concentration of power as the quickest path toward security.
Yet the very power we welcome today may become the power we fear tomorrow.
The American constitutional tradition sought to address that danger by establishing a government possessing real authority but operating within defined boundaries. Those boundaries were never meant to guarantee that every leader would be virtuous or every political decision wise. They were intended, in part, to protect a free people against the consequences of human ambition and the misuse of power.
But constitutional safeguards require citizens who believe those safeguards matter.
And that belief must remain steady regardless of who wins an election, which policies are being pursued, or how urgently we desire a particular outcome.
We cannot preserve a government of limited powers while continually demanding unlimited power for the causes we favor. Nor can we expect government to preserve the character of a republic if we abandon the personal responsibilities upon which republican liberty depends.
The challenge before us is therefore more personal than it first appears.
We must learn to distinguish between the things government is responsible to accomplish and the things that belong to us. We must recognize that good intentions do not justify every exercise of authority. And we must possess enough self-government to accept limits upon political power even when those limits restrain our own preferences.
That brings us to the mirror once again.
Am I asking government to do something because it is government's rightful responsibility—or simply because government has the power to make it happen?
The answer reveals something important about our understanding of liberty.
A free people need government strong enough to fulfill its legitimate responsibilities. But they also need government restrained enough to respect the responsibilities and freedoms that belong elsewhere.
And they need citizens who understand that the preservation of liberty requires more than limiting the power of others.
It requires the willingness to limit the power we ourselves are prepared to exercise.
Spirit & Truth
Thom H. Paine
Notes
James Madison, The Federalist, no. 51, “The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments,” February 8, 1788, National Constitution Center, https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/james-madison-federalist-no-51-1788. Madison's discussion of human nature, the necessity of government, and the importance of constitutional checks provides the historical foundation for this chapter.
James Madison, The Federalist, no. 51. Madison argued that the constitutional structure should provide governmental departments with the means and motives to resist encroachments upon their respective powers. His reasoning recognized that constitutional restraints must account for human ambition rather than depend entirely upon personal virtue.
The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Samuel 8:1–22. Samuel's warning addresses the demands and consequences of the monarchy requested by Israel, within the specific context of Israel's covenant relationship with God.
The Holy Bible, New International Version, Mark 12:13–17; Romans 13:1–7; Acts 5:27–29. These passages recognize legitimate civil obligations while maintaining the distinction between human authority and the higher authority of God.
Bibliography
Madison, James. The Federalist, No. 51. “The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments.” February 8, 1788. National Constitution Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/james-madison-federalist-no-51-1788.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.
The Founders’ Quill seeks to recover the spiritual and moral foundations that shaped the American experiment in ordered liberty. By returning to Scripture, history, and the wisdom of those who came before us, we are invited not merely to admire our inheritance but to become people capable of preserving it.
Comments