Many do not know that we live under two political systems: one primarily national in function, the other primarily domestic. It’s called federalism—the two share power and are equal. Neither was to be subservient to the other and each was to have separate duties. Thomas Jefferson explained it best when he said, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
Think of this relationship as an ideal marriage, where neither partner is subservient to the other. The duties in a relationship are gradually assigned to one partner or the other. Neither feels beneath the other, rather they are a team.
Though this was the ideal, the Founders were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington articulated this when he warned, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In order to ensure that this fire does not spread too far and burn down the home, one builds a fireplace to keep the fire under control. That fireplace is the Constitution, particularly Section 8, which outlines all powers that are given to Congress. Everything Congress did was to be clearly linked to at least one of these enumerated grants of power. The States, who created the Federal Government, retained unto themselves all other powers per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. Californians remember numerous “brownouts” in the nineties because of California’s failed energy policies. Other states viewing this were careful to avoid the same policies. States have the tendency to look at sister states for models and to borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. What if we had federalized California’s failed energy policy? “Brownouts“ on a national scale.
Had our power crazed Federal Government refrained from their natural inclination to take more power, health care reform could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers. We would then have been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states have tried it: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify and avoid the “brownouts “ in the area. Instead they took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory for all. Of course, this would have necessitated an enlargement of the enumerated list through Article V, requiring “3/4th of the Several States.” Since more than 60 % of the people did not want this bill, the Constitution would have protected us from the federal government’s ineptitude.
Arm yourself with knowledge. Study and understand the Constitution so you can participate in informed discussion among those with whom you come in contact. Expect your Senators and Congressmen to understand it as well, and bear this in mind when you go to the polls. We must be active now before the fire of government takes over our states, our homes, and our lives.
Does the Health Care Bill set up an Obama only approved domestic army of dedicated followers? Buried deep, page 1313, in the very controversial bill of 2700 pages is the establishment of a Ready Reserve Corps for immediate service in time of national emergency. No definition of national emergency is given in relationship to the creation of this group. No explanation of why the National Guard or the fire and police departments already in place are not enough. Nor is there a sentence limiting this new force to health care functions only.
What is clear is that over 320 million is appropriated for the fiscal year 2010, suggesting immediate employment. This will be raised by at least 125 million each year until the total amount for fiscal year 2015 is over 1.1 billion. The money to fund the Ready Reserve Corps is to come “out of any funds in the Treasury.” Of course that actually means from the taxpayer. These amounts suggest the employment of thousands.
This bill already increases the number of IRS employees by 16,000 in order to enforce that everyone gets and pays for healthcare whether they want it or not. So what will the Ready Reserve Corps do? They are to be on short notice “to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.” But there is no language restricting their use in these cases, nor is there a definition of “public health” or “national emergency.”
Disturbing is that commissioned officers “shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923.” Civil service laws are in place to ensure one can be screened for employment with no regard to his or her political views, and classification laws define compensations by classification. Obviously such will be waived.
More disturbing is that “commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corp shall be appointed by the President” alone. The “advice and consent of the Senate” is excluded in making the appointment. Since no qualifications are specifically noted (instead noticeably waved) it seems any goon will do. With 30 years experience in studying the rise and fall of great nations, this is especially disturbing to me. It is reminiscent of the Brown Shirts in NAZI Germany, where dissention was hunted and punished.
Especially unsettling in light of the above is candidate Obama’s July 2, 2008 statement. “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Is this the beginning of such a force? The U.S. army has nearly 500,000 troops excluding the National Guard. In 2007 our U.S. Defense budget was 439 billion dollars. Why would we need a domestic security force even larger? And what would it do, pick on dissenters like Tea Party participants? Is this the civilian national security force of which he spoke? Sounds like thug-ocracy and a potential threat to our freedom.
Twenty years ago June 4, thousands of students gathered at Tiananmen Square to oppose socialism. Using a copy of the Statue of Liberty they created to symbolize their bid for freedom over 2,000 stood as Patrick Henry had years before with his, “give me liberty or give me death.” No one in history symbolized this more powerfully than the brave student who stood in front of the line of incoming tanks offering the only thing left to him, his body. The Chinese government continues to tell us nothing of this man. Eventually over one million demonstrated in the streets of China in support of the nations bid for freedom.
Led by the student intellectuals from the universities, the group supposed to be the base of future communism rule, it caught the existing socialist government leaders completely by surprise. Paralyzed for seven weeks-how could they destroy their future socialist base?-the decision was made by the Old guard. In the middle of the night a tank drove through the Square of demonstrators at full speed crushing to death hundreds under its massive wheels. It was followed by indiscriminate gunfire and other incoming tanks and thousands were wounded or killed.
Virtually all nations condemned the Chinese governments’ brutality as did the United States but unfortunately, within a month thereof, President Herbert Walker Bush, having previously been our ambassador to China, awarded the “Old Guard” most favored nation trade status– a real coveted prize for the receiving country. Presidential candidate Bill Clinton promised to retract the favored status on the basis of Chinas’ continued human rights violations but after his election changed his mind.
Ironically while the Chinese intellectuals, who understood what socialism really was, were attempting to rid themselves of it, our student intellectuals of today are too often promoting and electing those who promote socialism and abandoning, as quickly as thy can, the very philosophy that made us the envy of every other nation on earth. Socialism, without a serious injection of capitalism, has never resulted in prosperity for more than the ruling elite and never will. Sometimes our intellectuals are too smart to see that. If we wish to retain our freedom those who cannot or will not see must be turned out of office regardless in which party they reside.
We end our coverage of the Tiananmen Square Slaughter with two brief contemporary CNN accounts: Tiananmen Square Students Reject Socialism and Tiananmen 20th Anniversary found in Dr. Peases’ Favorites. Would to God that we never have to attempt to get back our liberty in the same way having lost it by our own present ineptitude.
The Founding Fathers’ concept of separation of powers has been heavily altered the last fifty years. The Constitution allowed only the Legislative Branch to make law (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause I). A law’s review by 533 individuals (432 members of the House, 100 Senators and 1 President) served as a filter for bad law as only one bill in thirty survived the rigid scrutiny of both branches and the signature of the president.
Today the president makes half as many laws as does the Legislative Branch. Some few laws of Congress need a statement of implementation by the president. For example, President Washington was directed by Congress to create Thanksgiving Day as a national holiday. This he did by Executive Order, which was lawful. An executive order, if it simply implements a single, recently passed (within weeks), law of Congress is fine. But, when he instead takes multiple pieces of many laws passed by ancient congresses, he effectively creates new law without any review and unconstitutionally usurps the powers of Congress. This has happened through much of the 20th Century.
Even more blatantly unconstitutional is the practice of presidents, beginning with Nixon, of not even attempting to justify their Executive Orders with ancient pieces of authorization, instead, just decreeing something to be law. These are known as Presidential Decrees and differ little from Monarchical Decrees. More recent is the practice by presidents, most notably George W. Bush, of issuing a Signing Statement on a new law that they do not like, which basically says that he will enforce only some parts while ignoring others.
Except for the few Executive Orders, which require a statement of implementation by the president, all other types of Executive Orders are unconstitutional and must stop. If they do not, the inevitable will happen– Congress will nullify itself and monarchical decrees will be the standard.
