The Supreme Court recently shocked the federal bureaucracy. And on Independence Day, as if possessed by the spirit of ’76, a federal judge issued a moratorium on the government’s collusion with social media companies to silence law-abiding citizens. All of these decisions could be described as a firm assertion, a declaration, that self-restraint—the governing principle that even the founding-generation “big government” mob advocated—still remains the bedrock of our society. .

It was the legendary James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay who advocated for a strong central government in 1787, arguing that a loose confederation of states simply could not unite. Their vision now seems strange. Their claims for enough government to unify the states without encroaching on individual liberties are today riddled with hate by progressives who see government as the only solution to addressing the laundry list. Regressive, and in today’s left-wing parlance, it will be reviled as ultramaga. of request.

For example, progressives are calling on governments to crack down not only on illegal social media but also demeaning speech. Madison, Hamilton and Jay also faced people saying mean things about them. Although not explicitly stated, federalist documentI think their view of mean people who say mean things boils down to supporting a “stone and whip” approach.

The government that the Founding Fathers championed meant protecting liberty, not arbitrating liberties, choosing sides, or limiting individual liberties. Our Declaration of Independence was drawn up by the colonies to separate us from England, but it also revealed oppression, including from the government our founders intended to create from the ashes. Created on behalf of the people against The Constitution sought to shape that ideal into a viable government.

Social media would be a better place if people read Madison, Jay and Hamilton’s articles. federalist document Before commenting on politics or government on social media. But it is not required, nor is there a right to protect the public from mean words. Our system guarantees freedom of speech and demands government restraint as much as it respects individual liberty. The Court’s ruling reinforces this at a time when today’s governments are less connected to the intentions of their founders.

First, the court nullified affirmative action in college admissions. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment protects everyone from discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and so on. At some point, the Left decided that this was not enough. The government was the only answer. Freedom is not the goal, they say. Equality is the goal. They can define equality, arm governments to crush dissent, and force remedial action (i.e., “good” discrimination) on the public in the name of it. The Supreme Court unsurprisingly sided with Madison, Jay, and Hamilton.

The court also reaffirmed freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The court ruled that the government cannot compel civilians to hold or promote their views. If you don’t want to create a wedding girlfriend website for couples because your beliefs remain strong, you don’t have to. If Kaepernick Bakery does not want to make a Betsy Ross flag cake, they also have the right to refuse it. The beauty of federal social media injunctions is that they can even name business owners on social media, and the government can’t stop them. Government restraint won again.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the president could not ignore Congress. Congress requires students who take out loans to repay. Joe Biden tried to evade Congress and transfer many of his debts from his students to taxpayers. Separation of powers is a fairly basic concept in our system.President Biden would defend his position as necessary to help indebted college graduates, but no need. It is necessary to act within the confines of the Constitution, that is, to practice self-control.

The problem with big government ideology is that there are endless real injustices that seem to justify the government’s response. People who use social media to attack others are bad people. Suppression is not easy. It’s natural to want to do something about it, to use government as a proactive tool, often as a hammer. Individual acts by government are like hammering nails alone in the name of equality, dwarfism, and others who are considered beneficiaries. Taken together, it is a runaway government that leads us down a dark path to tyranny.

of federalist document Written by three men who support just enough central government. We are far past the days when blue-ribbon interagency commissions with self-labellings set up to justify what governments are trying to do are enough today. To make matters worse, unelected government officials and federal law enforcement agencies are colluding with social media platforms to restrict speech without even trying to defend it. We should be grateful to federal and Supreme Court justices, but we need more Madison, Jay, and Hamilton today. Or another Jefferson might write a new Manifesto of Restraint.

Matt Dole is a communications consultant.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.