In an 1830 speech that long predated the Gettysburg Address, but that is thought to have influenced it, Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster described federal government as “made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.” He went on to say:

Democracy comes in many forms. “The United States is a democratic republic, not a democracy,” sticklers are quick to remind us. Well, fine. That's a technical distinction in structure and process. But Webster's words remind us that there are some even higher principles upon which our government is founded. And perhaps most key among ours, as a nation born out disgust for the tyranny of government overreach, is the notion that our elected representatives are our servants, not our masters—that while they make laws, they are also bound by them.

And while legislatures may also change those laws, and even with more effort may change our rights, the processes we have put in place are generally designed to make such change slow. This slowness permits citizens, from whom moral authority for government is drawn, to react in a thoughtful, deliberate and orderly way. The very attempt by government to act in precipitous haste is extraordinarily dangerous not just because it tends to be unjust, but because in failing to include all relevant parties in a manner respectful of their rights—and indeed their ordinary day-to-day practical needs—it risks that those excluded may fear they have no recourse left but swift violence.

The clumsy and slow nature of due process is our principal protection from violence in the United States. Politicians preach the need for efficiency, and certainly efficiency in routine matters makes sense, but efficient change is another matter altogether.

Excess efficiency in the creation of new law may be difficult to distinguish from an outright attack. It yields a sudden shift of power, moving quickly and before the public can respond. Such swift tyranny abhors allowing a public sufficient time to hear, understand, discuss, and respond in an orderly way. Any time someone wants to make it easier to change government on short notice, alarm bells should ring and the public should be ready to ask “why?”

There may be, of course, situations where the nation is literally under attack or a meteor is due to strike the Earth within hours. It is for these very rare situations that executives have extraordinary powers to act. But our society is designed in such a way that this power to act quickly is limited and must be followed shortly thereafter by thoughtful deliberation, confirming the goodness of the hasty act, to avoid the possibility of abuse. And for normal situations, like the creation of policy, deliberation is simply the way things must be done.

There may likewise be big, important issues that languish and must be pushed into the public eye, not for instant action, but also not to be ignored. The budget, health care, and the winding down of our various wars are among these. But that's what leadership is about. These things cannot usefully be accomplished by fiat in the middle of the night by an impatient leader. Absent truly extraordinary circumstances, good leaders must take the time to raise issues, encourage public discussion, muster consensus, and move forward in a manner respectful of due process, not disdainful of it.

And that brings us to recent events. Yesterday I wrote about the illegality of the action by the Wisconsin state senate. Here's another recent government overreach—this time from Michigan—that pretty clearly attempts to use the mechanism of special crisis powers to opportunistically acquire political ground inappropriately:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The thing to note in these recent occurrences is the way in which there are attempts to artificially transform deliberative process into a crisis. As you consider these stories, I urge you to think about whether the problems being solved in these legislatures are really so urgent that eliminating public notice and oversight are really the proper remedies.

In my personal view, these are very dangerous and provocative moves exactly because the elimination of such rights may leave the public feeling they have less and less option other than to become more actively militant, perhaps even violent. I urge peaceful responses because it may well be that the purpose of these acts is to provoke a circumstance in which violence breaks out.

I fear that certain politicians are already salivating at the idea of exercising the powers of martial law in response to some violent situation. Should that happen, I fear it would not end well.