The Consent of the Governed
posted at 2:21 am on November 29, 2009 by Doctor Zero
printer-friendly
Jonah Goldberg of National Review recently wrote about the high-stakes political battle over health care reform:
Some moderate Democrats are making a side bet that they can vote for it out of solidarity and then run back to the center come the 2010 elections.
Well, I say let it ride. And just to make it more interesting, Republicans should promise to repeal “ObamaCare” if they get a congressional majority in 2010. As National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru argues, that way moderate Democrats won’t be able to run away from their votes come 2010. They’ll be on notice that this will be the campaign issue of the election. And moderate Republicans will be on notice to resist the temptation to tinker with Obamacare rather than defenestrate it once it’s passed.
Sure, I’d rather see this health-care proposal die stillborn (and that’s still quite possible). But if it passes, the upside is that Americans will finally be given a stark philosophical choice on a fundamental issue. That’s much rarer than you might think (recall that the Iraq War and the bailouts were bipartisan affairs).
Earlier in the article, Goldberg complains that “the quest for the middle ground usually rewards the worst kinds of politicians — those devoid of any core convictions and only concerned with feathering their own nests — and yields the worst kinds of policies.” The health-care debate presents the kind of sharp ideological contrast that makes it hard for unprincipled politicians to seek shelter in the mushy bog of the middle ground. Over the weekend, the libertarian Cato Institute calculated that the true cost of ObamaCare would exceed $6 trillion, after the various deceits used to make it seem close to revenue-neutral are stripped away. How much does real estate in the “middle ground” of such outrageous spending cost? Three trillion? When a radical program of such massive size is proposed, anything less than determined opposition is equivalent to submission.
I appreciate Goldberg’s point about the kind of muddled, confusing, and ultimately ineffective legislation produced by the quest for the middle ground. However, I wonder how truly desirable these uncompromising contests between capitalism and socialism are. Aren’t elected officials, especially Congress and the President, supposed to represent all of their constituents? Wouldn’t that mean listening to the concerns of both liberals and conservatives, and trying to craft legislation that satisfies both sides to some degree? Are the members of a winning political coalition supposed to have absolute power to do whatever they want, even if they won with only about half the popular vote, while the other side sits in obedient silence until their next chance at the ballot box?
In the course of endorsing a Dick Cheney run for the Presidency in 2012, Jon Meacham of Newsweek writes:
One of the problems with governance since the election of Bill Clinton has been the resolute refusal of the opposition party (the GOP from 1993 to 2001, the Democrats from 2001 to 2009, and now the GOP again in the Obama years) to concede that the president, by virtue of his victory, has a mandate to take the country in a given direction.
I don’t think most Americans are under the impression they’re voting for a dictator every four years. Bill Clinton won the Presidency with a mere 43% of the popular vote. What sort of “mandate” did that give him to “take the country in a given direction?”
Of course, we cannot parcel out presidential powers based on the scale of the candidate’s electoral victory. The proper functioning of our government, and the harmony of our democracy, demand that we acknowledge the full legitimacy of the man or woman who sits in the Oval Office. The Left did their country no favors by bitterly dragging the 2000 elections out until 2008. The complementary aspect of this principle is that strong electoral victories cannot logically yield enhanced “mandates” to take the country in various radical directions. If close elections don’t produce miniature Presidents who just keep the seat warm until the next election, then landslide victories don’t produce super-Presidents with turbocharged authority. A President who carries 49 states, and wins 70% of the popular vote, is not entitled to stuff the opposing 30% of the electorate in the trunk and take America out for a joy ride.
The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The American understanding of democracy does not envision voters as slaves who enjoy the privilege of voting for a new master every few years. When the Declaration speaks of the right – and, later the duty – of the people to abolish tyrannical governments, it renders the notion of “mandates” to impose radical change on unwilling citizens absurd.
The vital role of consent in the structure of a just government is one of the most powerful ideas ever advanced by the human race. On the other hand, the belief that consent can be manufactured by democratic majorities is one of the most cherished illusions of activist government. The dissent of a minority is not rendered irrelevant by victory in a popular vote… but the health-care debate in the Senate proceeds on the assumption that victory in a parliamentary struggle between a hundred elected officials will compel the consent of the millions of citizens – now a sizable majority of the population, based on the latest polls – who strenuously object to ObamaCare. If Senate Democrats win this debate, huge amounts of your liberty will be destroyed, and vast sums of money will be seized from taxpayers… and you will not be allowed to object. Any attempt to withhold your consent from this economy-shattering, life-changing radical legislation will end with you sitting in a prison cell.
The consent of the governed cannot be expressed solely through a semi-annual vote for elected representatives. It can only be respected by placing strict limits on what those representatives can vote for. Some would argue that requiring the consent of the entire population to authorize massive government programs would effectively render those programs impossible, because 100% agreement is virtually impossible to achieve. Exactly. The entire apparatus of socialist government is a Constitutional violation that would never receive the total support of those who are controlled by its regulations, or compelled to pay for its agenda. For this reason, its agenda should never even reach the serious discussion stage, never mind legislative implementation.
Americans concerned about the size of their government should not be forced into a permanent defensive posture against an endless series of aggressive initiatives. If the needs and desires of some can transcend the liberty of others, then liberty itself is a meaningless concept. Freedom is not what you have left after everyone else is finished making demands of you. The need for your consent is not respected when your only hope of withholding it lies in historic midterm electoral victories and the rapid construction of huge Congressional majorities. The patriots who declared their independence from England perceived an essential truth about the nature of just government, which we have become almost afraid to contemplate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Well put. And the slant is one most people never think about. Average Joe’s don’t often study the differentiation between Republics and the various –ism’s. And so don’t perceive that czar isn’t just a media term but an actual imperial position.
To derive the consent of the governed involves more than a vote, as you stated Dr.0. Consent is ongoing, momentary. A young lady who consents to a feel-up can say no at any moment to “Russian fingers”. Well, at least in theory. And so should the governed have that momentary check-off. Writing your representatives can be effective, but only when they actually believe that they work for you. The accelerating use of “czars” by our presidents seems to indicate that voter and congressional approval has already been consented. Ad infinitum. A super majority seems lately to lend credence to the old saw “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Somehow this misogynous promulgation of power must be aborted, confirmations and responsibility restored to the process.
Stifling the urges of politicians that are freshly tasting the fruit of power is one of the challenges we face. Another is not allowing that taste to become an addiction fed by other users, the power brokers, lobbyists. My allusion to addictive drug use is more appropriate than most people would allow. Junkies’ friends tend to be other junkies, suppliers, and supportive relatives who foster their behavior because “they just can’t help themselves; Little Timmy was always weak, couldn’t say no”. Perhaps we need any organization called Politicians Anonymous and a ten point program that they are required to participate in upon election. Something to help with their upcoming weakness for power.
Perhaps we need a more educated public. A public taught to revere their freedoms, their power of consent, their vote. None of these should ever become fleeting whims cast upon the alter of sloth nor of idol worship.
Robert17 on November 29, 2009 at 6:58 AM
This is the same crap as Climategate, and the dems are the scientists at IPCC who are peddling bad science.
Mathematics is a science.
They are blatantly fudging the science to arrive at the conclusions that they want. But this is happening out in the open, and no one seems to be bothered with the “smoothing” techniques or “Reid’s Nature Trick”. They are going to get away with it again!
Itchee Dryback on November 29, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Sorry for the rant.
Great article by Goldberg.
Itchee Dryback on November 29, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Goldberg is absolutely correct. The choice is between freedom and slavery – again. The Democrats are on the side of slavery – again.
It’s 1860, folks. Which side are you on? “A house cannot be divided against itself, half slave and half free.”
SDN on November 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Then why isnt the repeal of social security and medicare/medicaid the number one agenda item for ‘constitutionalists’?
ernesto on November 29, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Check out Tucker Carlson doing a piece on what the children are reading in school these days. When I was growing up there were WWII wifes as teachers and let me tell you how they taught about freedom! They taught the Pledge of Allegiance and required it every morning along with just what the pledge meant. NOT HAPPENING IN OUR COMMUNIST SCHOOL SYSTEM TODAY…
psychocyber on November 29, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Somehow, I suspect that you are not asking this question out of a sincere interest in Doctor Zero’s point of view. I suspect that it’s really a trick question. If we were to say that no, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid shouldn’t be repealed, then you would claim that we’re being hypocritical in our opposition to Obamacare, which you probably think is just like Social Security but is in fact much worse, by degree if not in kind. On the other hand, if we say that Social Security and the like SHOULD be repealed, then you would call us extremist heartless meanies who don’t care about people.
ALl the same, since you did ask, I would say that our society should have a debate about continuing Social Security and the like, but at the moment, the pressing issue is ObamaCare. once we stop that, and get the country moving in a true constitutional direction again, then we can talk about other programs.
TheQuestion on November 29, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Being the fly in the ointment again, eh ernesto. Yeah, let’s stop everything and work vigorously on repealing what you suggest.
Here’s an idea ernesto, why don’t you go to work on repealing what you’ve interjected, excuse me, suggested, while the rest of us address the current legislation of the 111th congress. That should keep you busy for a decade or two, If we’re still around by then, we’ll check back with you and measure your progress.
Americannodash on November 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM
They can put you in prison for not paying your taxes, but if you don’t produce the revenue that justifies those taxes what are they going to do?
Throw you in jail for NOT doing something?
Chainsaw56 on November 29, 2009 at 8:47 PM
We a now convinced that congress will get us into a new civil war and it will not end well for the people now in power.The center and the libertarians will come to the fore and reestablish a new republic where the consent of the governed is prime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M
Col.John Wm. Reed on November 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM
Best idea I’ve heard in a very long time. However, those that own the central banks will never let that happen.
CC
CapedConservative on November 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Open your damn ears, Ernesto! If you haven’t heard from the movement, you haven’t been listening!
gryphon202 on November 29, 2009 at 8:51 PM
Ronnie got a MANDATE, look what happened. He actually had bipartisan support in ALL THREE BRANCHES. The last time that happened Nixon screwed the pooch. The fact is every time some dhimmicrap makes to the oval office they start saying mandate by five am November 5th before the inauguration.
I don’t see Ronnie’s efforts as a joy ride do you?
Blacksmith8 on November 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Simply a wonderful post to read, thank you very much.
rightwingyahooo on November 29, 2009 at 9:04 PM
It’s simple ernesto, my right to FREE SPEECH, and my right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS are more important to me than your government handout.
Blacksmith8 on November 29, 2009 at 9:06 PM
They can put you in prison for not paying your taxes, but if you don’t produce the revenue that justifies those taxes what are they going to do?
Throw you in jail for NOT doing something?
Chainsaw56 on November 29, 2009 at 8:47 PM
I’m seeing shades of Atlas Shrugs in that statement. What if the producers stop producing? When the motor of the world stops, what will the looters loot?
As Ayn stipulated, only when the masses come to realize what they hath wrought with their counter-productive, collectivist policies, can sanity be restored.
As Dagny eventually had to accept, D’Anconia was right. There are only two choices, slavery or go Galt. Any other recourse is but a rear guard action, staving off the inevitable.
Archimedes on November 29, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Do not imagine, Doctor Zero, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than our Dear Emperor and Savior Barack Obama, Royal Queen Nancy Pelosi and High Prince Harry that all Americans should have their liberty and constitutional rights. They would be only too happy to let American citizens make their own decisions for themselves, but sometimes America’s citizens might be racists, Nazis, political terrorists or dressed too well or not dressed well enough or just plain stupid and make the wrong decisions, Doctor Zero, and then where would we be?
Cheshire Cat on November 29, 2009 at 9:08 PM
They will be bankrupt soon enough so why sweat it.
Kleines Huhn on November 29, 2009 at 9:12 PM
the founders placed a way to give the consent of the people for radical change. It is called a consitutional amendment. It requires 3/4ths of the Senate the house and the states. this is where Reagan messed up. his “mandate” should have been turned into consitutional amendments.
unseen on November 29, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Hey,
If Texas secedes, then remaining red states will have to secede too due to huge blue shift in what is left of the republic. They will have to or be slaves to the blue.
Sapwolf on November 29, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Doctor Zero stands accused of repeatedly using the unholy combination of meticulous logic and reason to try to convince the uppity unwashed peasants that they have the right and ability to stand up to their royalist betters. This is completely unacceptable as with malice of forethought it is molesting, tormenting, and otherwise greatly annoying our beloved Dear Leader and all his Royalist Forces and loyal subjects. Now, Doctor Zero, His Royal Majesty, Obama the Magnificent, ruler of all that he surveys, has instructed me to again give you fair warning, either you or your head must be off, and that in about half no time! Take your choice!
Cheshire Cat on November 29, 2009 at 9:14 PM
When the people fear the government you have tyranny…when the government fears the people you have liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson …
redridinghood on November 29, 2009 at 9:17 PM
I plan to withhold my consent from any legislation passed by the 111th congress. We truly are at an 1860-level decision time, and civil war may be our remedy of last resort. Even this, with all its bloodshed and horror would be preferable to consenting to Obama’s plans to enslave this once-great nation.
Fishoutofwater on November 29, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Though a valid sentiment and great words, this quote commonly attributed to Jefferson cannot be traced back to any of his orginial writings. The first time it appeared in print was in 1914.
publiuspen on November 29, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Absolutely positively WOW to that video!!!!!!!!
Many thanks for the link!
Josiah on November 29, 2009 at 9:36 PM
I, for once, will keep this relatively short. The answer to this inferred query:
is indeed a vital one, for we have a problem today that proponents of certain proposals constantly come back again and again even after they are defeated through fair democratic processes. On a global scale, it was seen with the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
Now, the ancient Athenians had an answer for this problem that while not perhaps being what one would say is ideal, did solve the issue of never-ending political battles over the same thing again and again, and for those today tired of arguing the same issue over and over, does offer an certain emotional appeal. For the Athenian answer for those who would not take an answer for an answer was this:
Banishment. For 10 years. It had a wonderful way of making people accept defeat gracefully, or to not press an issue too hard.
Now, certainly, we do not want to adopt this as the way the Republic should work, as tempting as it may be. But we can do something similar–time limits before an issue can be brought up again–say five or ten years. This, for example, would give us another three years before we needed to discuss unwarranted amnesty for foreign citizens illegally residing in the States.
But beyond that, there needs to be a way to ascertain whether a proposal is even a right function of the government, and if so, what level of government which it should be proposed at, whether it be local, state, or Federal. Much like a grand jury saying that a case is worthy enough to proceed to trial, there needs to be a body–and not a rubber-stamp body either–that says that the proposed legislation is one that the government has authority to perform if enacted. Ideally, it would not be the same body responsible for deciding what the legislation should be. Equally ideally, this body should not be derived from the same electoral method as the Legislature it is attempting to hold loosely in check (though, naturally, it must have a democratic basis in the consent of the governed through some means, so that the people can keep it in check).
I have before, elsewhere, talked of a Tribunate, which at the Federal level would be made up of citizens appointed by the states (one possible method). I envisage many functions for it, but in this case it would be thus: Each bill to be considered before the Congress would first, as with a grand jury, get the approval of the Tribunate as a proper function for the Federal Government to perform, and not a function of the states, or indeed something the government should not be involved in at all. It would thus help hold in check the liberty-destroying impulses of the Federal government, as today’s politico has proven all too well that the only inner check possessed is all to oft of the political kind.
To guard against Tribunes from being corrupted by the disease of “going Washington”, there are ways to insure they represent the interests of the people or the states (depending upon selection or election method). One of them is to not have them meet in Washington at all. Similiar is to not have them meet as a body, but ‘phone it in’, taking advantage of modern technology. A third is to have membership in the Tribunate be a part-time position, with enough Tribunes to make three or four complete bodies, with each session lasting three to four months before the next one takes station, thus allowing year-round coverage but forcing the Tribunes to earn the living among those who they would serve. (Incidentally, I often toy of doing the same with Congress. Getting Congressmen back into their districts and earning their living from means besides from being Congressmen would go far in solving many evils. We have created a system so fearful of corruption due to low pay that we fail to see the corruption inherent in a system of high pay, for it means the Congressman, understanding he has found a good job of high pay with influence and power, will do much to keep it. Better to let him be a part-time Congressman, one of only several representing a district, and for only a portion of the year, so that if he is corrupted, it is in a more easily-discovered blatant cash transaction that can never be spun as a good, rather than the current method of using the public fisc to retain office that always seems to be a mere desire to enact the “will of the people”, even when it isn’t–though it often is. For the people also have a bribery issue of their own, but I digress…)
There are ways to restructure our government so that Leviathan does not occur, that the natural passions of man and politician are taken into account, that the will of the people be done as well as needed governing authority occur, and that the spirit of Liberty does not depart the land. but we are going to have to understand first that the current system is not one of virtue, that both politico and people have been corrupted, and that it is finally time to end the great debate of the 20th century and truly decide what we think is more important–liberty or government largesse.
Horatius on November 29, 2009 at 9:38 PM
WOW! I am always amazed at the intelligence of the people on this site. Kudos.
royzer on November 29, 2009 at 9:46 PM
The Demorat Party has always been the party of slavery. Once it was chattel slavery. Now it’s socialist tax slavery. Tyranny is tyranny no matter how many elections the Demorats rig.
(And Obamacare would not have a ghost of a chance without rigged Senate elections in Minn, NJ, Louisiana, and South Dakota. And I might be forgetting one or two illegitimate senators.)
WannabeAnglican on November 29, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Correct as usual Dr. Z.
Is this a comment about marriage?
Mojave Mark on November 29, 2009 at 9:52 PM
If the people don’t enforce the Constitution, who will?
Democrats have no authority for this. They may have the power, but they have no authority.
JohnJ on November 29, 2009 at 9:55 PM
This is a very valid point that can expanded on. A date involves an implied contract. Either one can say ‘time to go home’ before or during the movie, the kissing, the foreplay, the undressing, and even after the start of coitus. At each subsequent stage though it takes more personal honor to value that contract. Sometimes the fear of being accused of rape will help enforce the contract when sufficient honor is lacking.
We start our implied contract with each politician using the Constitution as our guidepost. When they do not honor the contract and will not let us go, it is time to scream RAPE. Just because you are a minority in the current electorate does not prevent you from enforcing the contract or give them the right to run roughshod over the contract.
I feel as if I am being plowed by the entire combined teams of the NFL. Without even a kiss or dinner.
GnuBreed on November 29, 2009 at 9:57 PM
It should be. These programs are bankrupting America. They’re not doing anything that can’t be done better and fairer with private insurance.
There is no reason whatsoever to have any kind of government-run social net; since we have birth control there is no reason for anyone to be born into poverty. Parents are responsible for their children. Adults are responsible for themselves.
Taking care of whoever gets left behind or falls through the cracks is the responsibility of the extended family and neighbors, not a faceless government.
modifiedcontent on November 29, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Perhaps you are right. But he did say this:
And this:
atheling on November 29, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Meacam is a partisan hack. Let’s talk about Bush winning in 2000 and the Democrats devising a filibuster strategy on all of his judicial nominations. I don’t believe it can be emphasized enough how the Democrats have taken politics to the lowest levels and kept it there, no matter who’s in power.
These bills, cap and tax, the stimulus package, and the health care legislation, have been drafted in private, built up to over a thousand pages, and then thrown out onto the floor with little time to read before the votes. What sort of power is that? If the republicans were doing that, the press would be all over it. Instead, we have the silence of the lambs, as far as the media is concerned.
I agree with Jonah Goldberg, if the Democrats are successful in passing this legislation, in spite of the overwhelming opinion of the electorate against it, run on it and vow to repeal it. However, repeal will not be enough unless they offer a vision of what alternatives they have to it. If they just try the repeal option, I don’t believe I could vote for them, although I wouldn’t want the Democrats to think they did anything good. Let’s put it this way, the correct way to run would be on repeal plus a viable alternative.
bflat879 on November 29, 2009 at 9:58 PM
When every law (and every tax) applies to ALL citizens EQUALLY, then and only then will we have a chance of saving our republic.
Democracy = mob rule… which allows corrupt politicians to buy the votes of equally-corrupt, lazy and uneducated citizens using public funds that are forcefully taken from those who are productive.
Democracies ALWAYS fail… that is why our wise founding fathers intended for us to be a republic.
A nation of laws, not of men.
painesright on November 29, 2009 at 10:05 PM
I’m afraid that short of armed revolt, this might be our only alternative.
What happens if the Statists succeed in Rahming healthcare through and the resulting invasion of immigrants are given voting rights?
What do we have as a plan B?
Chainsaw56 on November 29, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Chainsaw56 on November 29, 2009 at 10:30 PM
With amnesty, it was our own party that needed to be reminded that we didn’t accept “We know what’s best for you. Hold still.”
MamaAJ on November 29, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Don’t mistake my correction on authorship as disagreement with the sentiment expressed in the quote, but rather an understanding that the strength of one’s argument is often built on the accuracy of its details.
And thank you for the direct sourcing on your first quote. Interestingly, the second can as easily be attributed to Benjamin Franklin, John Bradshaw (1602-1659), John Calvin (1509-1564), or perhaps even the Old Testament. But it is perhaps best said, as noted by Doctor Zero, as follows:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” — Declaration of Independence, 1776
publiuspen on November 29, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Undoing ObamaCare, if passed, will be unlikely for years, if ever, and the longer it exists as law, the more entrenched in our economy it will be. The Democrats require a 60 vote super majority in the Senate to pass it. The Republicans will require a 60 vote super majority to repeal it. What do you think the chances are that a 60 vote Republican super majority will occur any time soon? The answer is: not a chance.
With that in mind, we must at all costs stop ObamaCare now to save our country from becoming a near irreversible socialist state.
stefano1 on November 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Indeed.
justltl on November 30, 2009 at 12:12 AM
topdog on November 30, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Part of the reason for the current batch of irrational and corrupt leaders is that we live in a weird post-modern, Sesame Street-ish, politically correct era where fair is more desirable than excellence and history is casually ignored. 2010 may be significant politically but only if people are truly paying attention.
AltTuning on November 30, 2009 at 12:44 AM
ernesto wrote:
Because stopping a firestorm has a somewhat higher priority that fixing a broken car.
Voyager on November 30, 2009 at 3:23 AM
This will be on a fast track to the Supreme Court. We’ll get it overturned… if we can keep our 5 rational justices alive for the next 4-6 years. I worry for them.
scotash on November 30, 2009 at 3:52 AM
If it still exists in 2012 and we have a Republican legislature again plus a Republican POTUS the entire act could be repudiated at that point and a very serious tax cut granted until the surplus built up over the years before the plan really kicks in runs out. (That is if there really is a surplus built up that is not spent preemptively on other projects.)
{^_^}
herself on November 30, 2009 at 4:41 AM
Doc Zero, you’re the best!!!!!!!!!!!
TheAlamos on November 30, 2009 at 5:59 AM
It should be. If I had it my way, we’d parcel Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid out to the states along with their revenues. Even if it took twenty years to straighten it all out, in the end, we’d have 50 innovative microcosms, each competing for citizens and businesses.
Doctor Zero is absolutely correct when he tells us that regardless of whatever “mandate” any given administration feels it has, it can’t just stuff the opposition “in the trunk and take America out for a joy ride”. By design, we citizens were supposed to have the choices and competition that local and state governance provide. There was no Constitutional authority to hold citizens as hostages to some great, tyrannical, central government.
It’s a weak mind which craves the uniformity of cookie-cutter government. And when we look closely at the policies of Democrats, we see that despite their rhetoric about “tolerance”, they really can’t tolerate the differences that Liberty demands.
To embrace true freedom is to embrace the chaotic nature of the world. The U.S. Constitution provides order to chaos by setting the simple parameter that even as we pursue our own happiness we draw the line at impeding our brethren from doing the same. We do this by holding the unalienable rights of each citizen as sacrosanct.
God, Himself, has graced us with Free Will. So… who are Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama to say otherwise?
The policies of this administration will make economic SLAVES of our children and their children after them. We are on a course that will demand 799 Billion ANNUALLY just on the interest payments of our debt. And that is before we add Obamacare and whatever other additional spending these miscreants have in mind.
Democrats appear to believe that the only law is the Mob-Rule of Democracy, the majority “mandate”. But no stretching, pulling, or twisting of the U.S. Constitution will change the meaning, the very spirit, of our legal contract with Government.
Democracy is just “two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch”. That’s why our founders chose to design a Republican system, grounded in Law.
Murf76 on November 30, 2009 at 8:40 AM
THis is the reason why the founding fathers envisioned a govt that was extremely limited in scope, had few powers.
They knew that whatever govt did, it would be doing over the objections of many of the governed. So it was best that govt do as little as possible. Govt should only do those things which the private sector is incapable of doing.
This list is pretty much limited to police powers and defense. And even the police powers themselves should be limited to only those things in which actual rights of citizens are being trampled on. No putting people in jail becuase their actions offend someone else.
MarkTheGreat on November 30, 2009 at 8:45 AM
No need, they’ll both go bankrupt in a few years.
MarkTheGreat on November 30, 2009 at 8:46 AM
It’s been done in the past.
MarkTheGreat on November 30, 2009 at 8:47 AM
Doctor Zero, bravo!
I agree wholeheartedly.
btw, I argue with those who pretend that being obedient to the rule of law means “consent” to those governing while abusing/destroying rule of law.
Impeach Corruption
maverick muse on November 30, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Miracles never cease. Meanwhile, first things first. Kill the wolf pack at the door before going out to deal with the ghost from Christmas Past.
Jonah Goldberg makes a good argument. For his point to get past rhetoric into the realm of a very REAL electoral threat, it requires a roaring unanimity amongst the opposition. Otherwise, financial ruin aside, prepare to be gutted, literally, by Big Brother possessing your DNA while doling-denying medical care according to favoritism.
maverick muse on November 30, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Agreed. Although, I understand what Jonah Goldberg is trying to say, that we need to put candidates on the record, the idea that we could simply “repeal” Obamacare is far fetched.
The whole problem with entitlements is that they take on a life of their own, controlling politicians rather than being controlled by them. If we couldn’t get 60 Senate votes before implementation of the program benefits, the likelihood that we’d get it afterwards grows smaller and smaller.
It’s imperative that Obamacare be stopped and stopped now.
Murf76 on November 30, 2009 at 9:01 AM
Agreed. Then is Obama’s attempt to re-make the country an impeachable offense?
Thanks for another fine essay, Doc Zero. I may frame that last paragraph and hang it on the wall somewhere.
petefrt on November 30, 2009 at 9:05 AM
“No problem” ?
The debtors come calling and take possession of collateral.
Don’t forget how Nixon rolled over for Charles de Gaulle, forfeiting our nation’s gold reserve upon his demand to redeem all of France’s American dollars, sending the dollar down the ruin river.
Dubai makes a current example of what might be in store for a bankrupt America.
maverick muse on November 30, 2009 at 9:08 AM
The presidency is charged with running the executive branch and the military, not with changing the country every four years at the whim of its occupant.
Akzed on November 30, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Great article Doc.
Like so many others have already said, they should be repealed. ‘You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.’ Anyone remember that quote?
I understand your point, but I think you overlook the one ingredient that corrupts any system – man. Our republic works, it’s men that corrupt the system and it’s men who will always corrupt the system.
Eventually, righteous men have to stand up to tyranny with force. That’s the bottom line. You can reason about ways to prevent corruption, but you simply cannot ever prevent corruption, because it’s in our nature.
Look at Honduras. Their Constitution spelled out clearly that presidents only serve one term. And that a president could not try to alter that provision. But a man decided he was above that provision and went about trying to alter it. Only force prevented him.
The sooner we realize that the better. I’m not sure what force we Americans will have to use or what will work, but I am sure that force will be necessary if we want to stop this assault on our liberty.
It’s not hard to understand and it’s not hard to see. It’s happened again and again and will happen again in the future.
j_galt on November 30, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Just a reminder that Obama ran as essentially a bipartisan candidate and that was his mandate. He was not elected to be a left wing dictator. He never asked for anything remotely resembling such an agenda. Quite the contrary, he campaigned, however disingenuously or unconvincingly to some, as a moderate, and won on that premise. To the extent that he has deferred unconditionally to Reid and Pelosi or otherwise abandoned his centrist rhetoric, he has violated that mandate.
But there is no remedy, other than elections, court challenges or, presumably , impeachment, for political perfidy. Elections are the mechanism by which consent is granted or withheld. You cannot license armed insurrection on the ground that elections are too distant or their results too unpredictable. You can only justify it if they have been cancelled.
The circumvention of the representative process through bureaucratic aggrandizement has been going on for generations. The only remedy for that is recognition that all government programs, however well-intentioned, are potential cancers. But that vigilance has to be part of civic awareness. And the better that awareness is disseminated, the less likely elections will lose their consensual heart.
Seth Halpern on November 30, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Yes, he won by deception. Fraud pays.
petefrt on November 30, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Yes, the Statists can use the police power of government to do pretty much anything they want.
Which is why, as you stated in another posting, why the founding fathers wanted governmental powers to be limited.
It now appears they are simply ignoring the restraints placed on them, now what do we do?
Somewhere along the way, we went from the consent of the governed to the consent of the Government.
So what do we do now that the government thinks that they no longer need our consent to govern, only the revenue to buy votes?
Chainsaw56 on November 30, 2009 at 12:29 PM
When people ask me who I’d like to see on a hypothetical Palin ticket with her, my answer is Col. West.
Perhaps if people see this video and those like it, they’ll understand why.
powerpro on November 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Looks like the Big Dogs are about to show up for the fight. Go, Col. Reed, Go; and Godspeed.
Robert17 on November 30, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Once again Doc you’ve hit it out of the park.
Forgive me if inappropriate, but I think we’d all be better off if someone like you – okay, actually you – would run for public office.
Please seriously consider it.
Gilda on November 30, 2009 at 10:16 PM