The executive branch has corrupted the legislative power through dramatic growth and usurped the people through the imposition of taxes and extreme debt.
In our political tradition, the very concept of liberty is inextricable from the notion that competing social forces must be balanced, and governmental powers separated. It follows that liberty would be jeopardized should the executive power insinuate its will into the legislative assemblies and manipulate them at pleasure, for that would result in an imbalance of forces, and would also violate the familiar principle that executive and legislative powers must remain separate. Unfortunately, the nature of executive power compels it to usurp legislative authority in just that way — a political reality to which free people should always remain sensitive.
As with most matters related to constitutional liberties, history is instructive as to this point. Though 1688's "Glorious Revolution" resulted in a transfer of sovereignty from the crown to Parliament, very few oppositionists of the day contented themselves that the political problems of their age had been resolved. Although the government was noticeably less oppressive than it had been for centuries, these men refused to accept the new arrangement as sufficient to protect the individual from the power of the state. Even in the face of stability and relative prosperity, 17th-century dissenters warned that the revolution's new system was naturally hostile to human liberty and happiness, because the absence of a mechanism to check the executive power meant that Parliament's sovereignty would not be able to withstand the shortfalls of human nature forever.
The oppositionists, observing that the separation of the executive power from the legislative was essential to the preservation of political liberties, recognized a gap in the new system which would allow these two forces to fuse into one. Specifically, it was argued that the executive power would eventually corrupt the legislative by growing the activities of administration so large that they could no longer be controlled by Parliament. Indeed, Bolingbroke famously warned that this kind of regime would survive by saddling the people with taxes and debts to acquire servility through the dispensation of pensions — an effect of the expansion of the administrative state — while society's most feebleminded would pledge their allegiance after sacrificing "their principles and consciences to a set of party names, without any meaning."
Today, in the United States, a massive expansion of federal power is taking place; the economic crisis has been used as a pretext to spectacularly amplify the scope of the administrative state. For example, the $789 billion Stimulus Package — which exceeds the entire cost of the Iraq War that began in 2003 — was rushed through Congress so fast that most legislators did not even have the chance to read it. Yet it passed. Since our representatives apparently no longer consider understanding a bill necessary to cast votes in its favor, it is safe to infer that the activities of federal administration have expanded to a point that legislative power can no longer meaningfully restrain them.
Not only will new and enlarged administrative programs impose greater tax burdens on the population, but federal legislation passed in late 2008 increases the national debt by over 7%, while a more recent law raises the debt limit of the United States to $12.104 trillion. The effect of this debt, as I showed in a recent piece, is a new regime of economic hyper-regulation, including a novel wealth redistribution program, substantial injury to federalism principles through the elevation of certain workers' unions above the authority of state governments, and significant restrictions on the ability of select companies to control their human resources and business transactions.
Thus, it is safe to say that what was an abstract fear for 17th-century critics has become a concrete reality for 21st-century Americans, because the executive has both corrupted the legislative power through dramatic growth and usurped the people through the imposition of taxes and extreme debt. Moreover, the executive's evident dominion over Congress is problematic, because executive power naturally protects and secures the interests of whomever controls legislation — which is why the Constitution vests legislative power in democratic assemblies composed of the people's representatives in the first place.
To make matters worse, the American people are afforded no protection against the rising tide of centralized encroachment from the federal judiciary, which long ago decided to defer to the legislature's judgment on all matters pertinent to economic liberty. Thus, without judicial protection, and as the legislative judgment has been overwhelmed and sterilized by the unprecedented growth of the executive's administrative activities, the responsibility to protect constitutional freedoms falls squarely on the American people. And it goes without saying that the electoral process is the first line of defense.
So, given that our legislators at the federal level have compromised our principles through the blind enactment of massive spending bills laced with federalism-crippling social legislation, an electoral catastrophe may well be on the horizon for sitting members of the United States Congress. Do the American people have the vigilance, the moral stamina, and the consummate wisdom to hold their representatives accountable?
Federal Executive Power: You ain’t seen Nothing Yet!
I agree with your assessment that liberty is being threatened by an out of control executive branch. The White House does indeed dictate to the legislative branch. Case in point; there is no real debate presently occurring in the Congress considering nationalized healthcare. The only debate is how big should the program be and what to do regarding the funding stream.
The current majority party is so enamored over their acquisition of power and so fearful of losing it during the next election cycle that they will rubber-stamp any program the executive branch proposes, as long as it seems sufficiently progressive enough.
An added dimension to this problem is the almost certain erosion of the last vestige of ‘state’s rights’ that Congress is preparing to enact.
California, as of this writing, has less than two weeks of operating capital. Right now, Congressman Barney Frank is drawing up legislation designed to provide federal assurance to California bonds. California will sell bonds (borrow money) that have the explicit backing of the financial power of the federal government. The most indebted government in history is about to guarantee the debt of the most indebted state in the union. However; I’m positive this legislation will be written in such a manner as to guarantee the bonds of ANY state that may, in the future, seek to close a deficit by selling bonds (borrowing more money).
What does this say for the future sovereignty of a state? I would submit that in California’s case not much. California, dominated by a progressive legislature for over a generation, has little left to lose. However; for many other states where the legislature may feel that selling federally backed bonds in order to close a budget shortfall may not comprehend the consequences of such a move.
Consider that President Obama replaced the CEO of GM, no questions asked, because the government basically had acquired a majority interest due to bailout money given to GM. Consider that both Chrysler and GM are closing dealerships as a part of their respective bankruptcies. Dealerships are franchise operations. A dealership doesn’t cost the company a dime. The franchise owner assumes all costs of operation. In the cases of Chrysler and GM these cuts were most probably demanded by ‘Car Czar’ Steven Rattner; a person with absolutely no automotive industry experience. Yet he and his ‘Auto Task Force’ are going to oversee the future of these car companies. Why? Because the federal government owns majority positions in these companies, that’s why.
Now contemplate the fact that federal funding of public schools amounts to about 7% of any public school district’s total annual funding level. How much federal control is exerted in the public school districts for that 7%? Quite a bit! How much control do you believe the federal government will demand over a state’s legislative agenda in return for the federal guarantee they would provide the state in a future bond sale?
Once again I will reference the Great State of California. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger cut state employee’s pay by 5%. The SEIU (State Employees International Union) petitioned the federal government for assistance and the federal government threatened to withhold $6.8 billion in economic stimulus unless the SEIU employees wage rates were reinstated: Which they were. This constitutes irrefutable evidence of the effects of federal executive power.
In the case of many states; California, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York, such a relinquishment of control over state law would probably be welcomed by those legislatures. First; most of those legislatures are so liberal to begin with, most are already looking for ways to remove the pesky voters’ recourse of referendum. They would like nothing better that to be able to say; “It is beyond our control. We cannot continue to finance the operations of our state government without complying with the federal mandate to ____.” Fill in the blank with your favorite progressive program here; gay marriage, paid abortion on demand, living wages, documentation for illegal immigrants, etc. But for many other states; the realization may come too late. After the first round of federally backed bonds is sold, then the state could well be required perform ANY federal mandate: Say to mobilize their National Guard to begin a house-to-house search and seizure of all firearms. Non-compliance would mean immediate insolvency for the state in question.
The executive branch already owns the largest insurance company in the US, several large banks, and two manufacturing concerns. In each case we’ve seen how the executive branch immediately turns that ‘ownership’ into control. They dictate executive bonuses; they decide which bondholders take primary positions in bankruptcy filings regardless of their previous collateralized security positions. They scrutinize the budgets of these companies for cuts with an alacrity they’ve never displayed when scrutinizing the federal budget. THey remove CEOs’ at will.
They’ve learned well from the current financial mess. They watched from the sidelines as the temptation of high profit drove people to sign mortgages they could not ever hope to repay. When the bottom fell out; the government rode in as a ‘white knight’. Not to save the people, but to save the banks. As economic conditions worsened, and tight credit began to spill over into other industries; one by one, they rescued them. The cost of this ‘deal-with-the-devil’ was a majority position in each troubled company. Following on the heels of the bailouts was the mailed fist of federal executive control.
The consequences of the economic downturn has begun to manifest itself within the states in reduced tax receipts, higher unemployment benefit costs, and general fiscal belt tightening; the federal government has already shown a propensity to dictate the terms under which a state may receive stimulus money. Just how much more certain will the executive branch become, once they’ve provided federal guarantees to the bonds that many states will have to offer in order to balance their budgets? Beware the federal hand-out; as it always comes with strings attached!
Milbrat, good analysis. The problem we face is potentially more dire that either the author or milbrat have posed. I’ve been one of those folks that keep a cherished copy of the constitution, amendments, and declaration of independence at home for periodic rereading. Currently the federal government is well beyond any constitutional authority would permit. You say…so what is the problem sue them! Sorry our evolving judiciary, when they decided to become gods, created the concept of interpretation (read that as it is too difficult to get agreement to amend the constitution therefore we will find a way to do the same thing without the votes) thus was born the new America. When an individual tries to stand up and attempt to have one of the many unconstitutional laws and executive orders declared unconstitutional the courts invented another safe guard for their godship they rule that the citizen does not have “standing” to pursue the question.
Maybe the time is coming to review why there is a 2nd amendment by reading the papers of the founders.
There is a very small glimmer of hope since a few of the states are taking baby steps toward remembering that they are independent entities that have ceded certain enumerated functions to the imperial federal government headed by its own messiah.
The future indeed looks bleak!
Here is my plea to those of your who enter the fray of intellectual discourse.
You are engaged in a great battle (see Gettysburg Address) for the vitality of a Constitutional Republic or a Democratic Republic.
Our Constitution is an expresseion of timeless Unversals and not subject to the whims of cultural/social consensus. When “y’all” engage those who are Progressive Liberals/Socialists, you need to do so on two fronts: first to speak to them in the areas of their concerns and engage them in spirited debate while outweighing the with an abundance of Historical and Sociological Truth; Engage them in such a way they will invite you to dinner to discuss in a more formal way.
It is in the informal settings where you treat them with great respect (as Made In His Image – MIHI) that they will speak with you on a more open/transparent plane. This is where the transformation will occur. They will see your wit and wisdom mingled with a compassion which is compelling.
Quietly in the past 50 years as an adult, I have wandered into the lives of public figures and later found them to be attractive in personality and very needy.
Engaging them is not a game and is always with the purpose of exposing them of Truth and bringing them into an understanding of Universals governed by Moral Absolutes stamped into the Universe by the Creator.
No man can live with personal guilt. Waiting to show the hopelessness of the Liberal mindset and the vaucous world of Time + Chance + Space = Reality brings these disturbing leaders to a place of Transformation.
You guys write well because you live in this area. Write on, take every opportunity to engage the Darkness publicly and privately. Your world is not my world
I appreciate the cogent and powerful expressions in your article. The man in the street talks about the 2nd Amendment. Even the radical socialist can be convinced of the horrors of the Rule by the Elite. Last week your article paraphrased into Union language convinced an ardent supporter of the Leader to abandon Socialism and Statism.
You write well – Thanks