In answering a question posed at the closing of the Constitutional convention, Benjamen Franklin uttered the famous words “A Republic if you can keep it.” That day, September 18, 1787, marked an important date in this nation's history; a summer spent in a particularly hot Philadelphia had seen compromise form the backbone of these United States of America.

We are fortunate to live in a Constitutional Republic – a nation of laws where the citizens are represented by their elected officials. This was the compromise reached in that sweltering Philadelphia summer. Men who had seen the dangers inherent in government, sought to strike a balance between a necessary evil (government) and individual freedoms that had recently been won at great costs. Recognizing the dangers found in a democracy – some went so far as to call it “mob rule” - the framers set up a system of checks and balances in which a limited government could operate while maximizing precious individual freedoms.

It is vital to understand the intent behind our particular form of government and how that government relates to the question posed. Since the ratification of our Constitution, it has been - and remains - the supreme law of our land: all laws must, by law, flow from within the scope of our Constitution. That is an important fact to remember as we contemplate the question asked.

The Constitution serves two main objectives; it limits federal powers to those specified, and it recognizes the fact that U.S. Citizens have unalienable rights.

We've all heard of the slippery slope leading to doom: thanks to unruly courts, and politicians who are most eager to retain power via vote-buying schemes, we're well on our way down the path to eventual servitude.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.” - Alexander Tytler

Similar thoughts have been expressed throughout time, but I fear they've gone unheeded as our society has drifted further and further from our nation's basic principles. One doesn't have to search for long to find some talking heads droning on and on about a fictitious need on the domestic front. In fact many among us are eager to vote ourselves the very largess that Tytler warned us about nearly two centuries ago.

While some of those domestic “needs” are well within the scope of government, few bother to task themselves with the duty of asking where the money has gone. Many decry the state of our nation's infrastructure, seemingly unaware of the fact that - on average - every man, woman, and child pays a whopping $271 in gasoline taxes each year (as of 2005). First imposed in 1932, the federal gasoline tax is now 18.4 cents per gallon: adding in state and local taxes increases the total tax (per gallon) to an average of 45.9 cents per gallon, with some states over 60 cents per gallon.

From its inception, the gasoline tax went into the general fund, though the amount raised was used as a benchmark for federal spending. In 1956 the Federal Aid Highway Act established the Highway Trust fund and mandated that 100% of the taxes raised be deposited in that fund and used solely for financing federal highways. This all changed in 1982 when the government established the Mass Transit fund and reserved 20% of new gasoline taxes for that fund.

In short, money raised for the repair and maintenance of our infrastructure has been diverted due to the whims of the relative few. We now have an infrastructure in need of repair (and updating) and a mass transit system that cannot function on its own accord. Each time a gallon of gasoline is purchased, we are financing someone else's ride on mass transit.

Other purported needs have a far more dismal record when it comes to government; even those rare few needs that are under the auspices of Congressional powers seldom warrant the extensive infringement that always accompanies government intervention.

Most of today's society is rather ill informed when it comes to presidential powers; we tend to cast blame and give credit when neither is warranted. The Constitution makes it quite clear that domestic issues are almost exclusively the domain of Congress; the Executive Office is largely limited to either signing a bill into law, or vetoing the bill. The only other real power - regarding domestic issues - that the president has, is the bully pulpit: effectively using the office to take the message to the people.

Presidential candidates certainly share the blame for the publics faulty perception of Executive Office powers: the candidates tend to offer promises that simply cannot be accomplished and usually should not be undertaken at all. However, if those promises are to be considered, it is the Congress that has that power: the president can do little besides urging Congress to heed his bidding.

Normally when government is the answer, the question asked was one based on negatives. However on those rare occasions when government is the only viable option, we must be informed voters and demand that government limits itself to only those powers granted per our Constitution. In the end, we citizens must be willing to bear the yoke of responsibility – as our freedom depends upon it.