Over the past 100 years or so a
variety of actions taken by government have slowly but surely
contributed to the decline of our nation's overall health and welfare.
There are too many examples to cover. And most were aimed at doing
"good" as seen by contemporary leaders/actors in all three branches of
government. Some however were, I suspect, actions intended to enhance
the image of respective leaders or for the benefit of their respective
political party or constituency rather than for the good of the
nation. Others were for ideological reasons. In any case, I have
captured a few recent examples that I think make the point.
1. This one highlights the
constitutional tightrope presidents have been walking when engaging in
overseas military operations. The implications are that too much power
has shitted from the people's representatives (congress) to a single,
fallible president. http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/a-long-history-of-constitutional-war-power-violations/
2. This item illustrates how the
current administration through its myriads of bureaucracies has taken
laws passed by congress and then interpreted them as they please
resulting in expansive regulations imposed on the nation's citizens and
economy. http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/318599-regulation-nation-obama-pins-climate-hopes-on-bypassing-congress
To emphasize the real and potential dangers inherent in federal
administrative bureaucracies, agencies and commissions consider this
quote from from page 9 of Administrative Law Attorney, Jonathan W.
Emord's book "The Rise of Tyranny". "Collectively, the federal
agencies and commissions regulate every important aspect of commerce in
the United States. They are ruled by individuals who are appointed
rather than elected. The Federal agencies and commissions have the
power to create law through regulation without obtaining the consent of
the people's elected representatives. They have the power to prosecute
those whom they charge with violating their regulations. They often
possess the power to judge the parties they prosecute without having to
present the charges in the first instance to an independent and
impartial court of Law. Throughout history that combination of powers
(legislative, executive, and judicial) in single hands has been defined
as tyrannical and despotic."
3. This item is but one more example of a government bureaucracy having gotten too enamored with its power and authority. http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_33785.php
4. This item refers to our
current President's unilateral determination of which laws he will
enforce. In this one example among a number of others he has chosen to
in effect rewrite the law to conform to "his" satisfaction - to heck
with Congress. As we all know, the Constitution assigns legislative
responsibility to the Congress and enforcement responsibility to the
administrative branch of government. The current as well as past
presidents have abused this constitutional division of labor. And, the
Supreme Court has been complicit by allowing both Congress and the
Administration to expand their power. http://www.fairus.org/legislative-updates/fair-legislative-update-august-28-2013 Abuse of the Constitution can be nothing less than the erosion of its primacy respecting our nation's governance.
5. The appointment discussed at
this link is a true indication of the dishonesty and questionable ethics
of our sitting president and how such appointments serve to erode the
people's trust in government. It is a case of the fox guarding the hen
house. The purpose the appointment is to assure the public is provided
with the administration's pre-determined outcome. Note also that the
appointee's wife serves as ambassador to the UN. Keeps things neat and
tidy within the broader goverment family. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/26/cass-sunsteins-new-presidential-appointment-is-almost-hard-to-believe-especially-considering-a-paper-he-once-wrote/
6. This example illustrates how
our government views those of us who differ with them on important
policy matters. It should concern you no matter your political
affiliation - the party in power today can be out of power tomorrow. A
couple of quotes will whet your appetite for more insight. Consider
this: "Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch recently obtained a
Department of Defense training manual which lists people who embrace
'individual liberties' and honor 'states’ rights,' among other
characteristics, as potential 'extremists' who are likely to be members
of 'hate groups.' The current administration seems to not recognize
that the Constitution enumerates both individual liberties and states
rights - they are not subject to the whims elites within government.
Today's power brokers/elitists and many of their predecessors also seem
to have forgotten that at its founding, our nation's government was duly
constituted by the states/the people. Incredibly, they now claim
that those who adhere to these Constitutionally enumerated rights are
"extremists" or members of "hate groups"? How is that even possible?
Think about that. Here is the second quote: "In U.S. history, there
are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists
who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate
states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two
examples, according to the training guide." So those who today think
similarly as did our nation's founders are now considered by our
government elites to be enemies of the very nation founded on such
thinking. Huh? This is not a joke. This is our current government's
official policy. http://www.infowars.com/dod-training-manual-suggests-extremist-founding-fathers-would-not-be-welcome-in-todays-military/
Regarding the notion of secession mentioned in the link, I offer four
thoughts: 1) The United States was founded by people "seceding" from
Great Britain. So, as a matter of first principles it is probable that
the founders understood secession to be a future possibility. 2) While
the founders did not specifically cover the topic in the Constitution
neither did they forbid it. 3) The Constitution would not exist were
it not ratified by the states. It was after all the states as
representatives of the people who created the union - the union did not
create itself or the states. The states preceded and founded the union.
Using that logic if so desired the states have the power to
collectively undo the union. 4) We need also to remember that the
Declaration of Independence specifically states that "...when a long
train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object,
evinces a design to reduce them [the people] under absolute despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security." Consequently, the
Declaration of Independence was, in fact, a declaration by the American
colonies stating their intent to secede from Great Britain. So, it
seems to me that if it was legal then it is legal now. Saying that does
not mean I advocate any state taking such action at this time. I'm
just saying...
These few examples suggest that we cannot trust our government to do the right things for the right reasons. For some time our nation has been drifting in the direction of becoming a totalitarian state. It is not a new phenomenon. Our current president is not the cause. He is just the latest iteration in a trend which has persisted for the last 100 plus years. It is just that the last two administrations have aggressively pushed the envelope and have successfully centralized more and more authority in the hands of a very few. That does not bode well for the long term survival of our individual freedoms which are subject to ever increasing controls/restrictions imposed by a power hungry centralized governmental authority in Washington, DC.
No comments:
Post a Comment