Lose the consent of the governed, and you have lost the country.
Those of you who are parents can sympathize with what I am about to say.
When you have a young child, you teach them complicated concepts by reducing their essence to simple, uncomplicated aphorisms or stories. "Don't talk to strangers," for example, is a shorthand way of saying to them "there are certain people in this world who want to do you harm, and you need to avoid these people."
Now, "don't talk to strangers" works for the mind of a three-year-old, but it's poor advice to be taken literally for someone in their twenties. As a young adult there are a lot of people not immediately familiar to you (teachers, policemen, your new boss at work, etc.) who you not only need to "talk to," you need to listen to as well. But as a general principle this simple admonition still stands — beware of people who represent danger. It just has to be understood and interpreted in a more sophisticated way as we ourselves become more sophisticated in the way we move through life.
This is all pretty common-sense, straightforward stuff. But now I want you to switch gears for a moment and think about another concept: the Constitution of the United States as the bedrock document that defines the scope and limitations of the laws of the United States (not to be confused with the Declaration of Independence, which is the bedrock document that defines the nature and source of our Rights upon which the Constitution was built, and which justified the creation of our nation in the first place).
I remember my first class in Political Science almost 40 years ago. There was a lot of dry, boring stuff about how a bill becomes law (bicameral legislatures pass different versions of the same legislation which are reconciled in committee, voted upon again by both houses and then signed or vetoed by the President, whose veto can be overridden if sufficient votes exist). This was balanced by some interesting historical accounts of how the Supreme Court self-acquired the right to overturn (declare "unconstitutional" and thus void) the actions and decisions of the other two branches, and how this authority became recognized and enshrined in our national psyche. And topping it all off was the really cool stuff about interest group politics, the influence of a "media filter" in the making of national policy, and how certain legislative-historical roles in government had flipped through the ages (for example, the Executive now actually proposes a budget to Congress).
But throughout all of this there was one inviolable fact that took us all back to our simple, straightforward understanding of the American system of government. If a law or action was outside the meaning and intent of the Constitution, it would not stand. Ultimately, it would be overruled and overturned. This may take decades — separate but equal survived for a lot longer than it should have — but as the ultimate self-correcting mechanism, the Constitution would not let it stand.
Oh sure, there was much more to this story than that. The suspension of certain Constitutional Rights by Lincoln, Court-packing under Roosevelt, the creation of new rights (like privacy) to justify Federal intrusion into State matters — all these banged up and battered the Constitution of my Poli Sci 101 days. But like a prize fighter going 15 rounds and still standing on his feet when the final bell rang, the essence of that wonderful document remained.
I learned as a more sophisticated, and more educated adult that the Constitutional bedrock was subject to some pretty strange interpretations, and that there were even differences as to the type of bedrock upon which it rested — granite or sandstone; strict construction or a "living Constitution." But even the most anti-Constitutional action still had to be framed in Constitutional language and justified through Constitutional history. Congress, the President, or even the Court couldn't just ignore the Constitution altogether and do anything it wanted. At the very least the Constitution was the immovable obstacle around which everyone must navigate. It couldn't simply be rejected out of hand.
Or so I thought, until the Supreme Court upheld a law to limit the ability of citizens to criticize elected officials 60 days before an election, allowed local governmental authorities to seize private property and give it to another private property owner, and when references to foreign law began creeping into the foundation of reasoning for certain Supreme Court Justices.
These decisions are substantively different from finding the "right to privacy" in the Constitution. When the Court wanted to legalize national abortion a half-century ago, it at least went through the motions of telling us all how this "right" was perfectly consistent with the meaning and intention of the U.S. Constitution. Today, particularly with foreign law references, there is no particular interest in relating a decision back to its Constitutional foundation in even the most casual way.
We're not quite at the point where the Supreme Court considers the Constitution irrelevant. But as the three examples I used to illustrate my point show, more than any time in the past (save the unique period of the American Civil War when Habeas Corpus was suspended outright), the High Court views the U.S. Constitution as just another element in their "wise Latina" decision-making process — not as the seminal element in that process. The danger signals are clearly there, and short of a dramatic reversal in the attitude of our elected officials who populate the Court with its decision makers, that trend is only going to get worse in the future.
The President and Congress are no better than the Court when it comes to acknowledging and following the Constitution. Again, this isn't a discussion of paleoconservatism vs. neoconservatism (such as found in the belief that only Congress can declare war, therefore the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is "illegal"). All this is still a debate about what the Constitution does or doesn't permit. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, has certain prerogatives in his own right to send troops into combat, and Congress — though not officially declaring war — still passed legislation authorizing and supporting such moves in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What I'm referring to here are actions that Congress and the President intend to take where absolutely no Constitutional authority or foundation exists. When asked to point to the language (or even interpretation of language) in the Constitution that allows the government to force every citizen to buy health care, the response of Nancy Pelosi was something to the effect: we won the last election. President Obama is a bit more eloquent: we won the last election, and the Constitution really needs to be re-worked anyway because it emphasizes what government can't do, instead of what it should do.
Gone is the pretense that their actions have any grounding at all in the Constitution of the United States. It isn't so much that they admit this fact; it's that they don't even consider it an issue. To them, the U.S. Constitution has become the political equivalent of the WWI Maginot Line. It's a fixed fortification that is simply bypassed to reach one's objective, rather than slugging your way through it.
What this says for the future of our country is frightening. Even recognizing that the myth of an immutable "Constitutional bedrock" is a children's story — the Constitution will always be subject to interpretation — I'd always assumed that the fight would be over strict or loose construction. Do we try to honor the purpose and intent of the founders who created this document, or do we allow for aspects of it to change as the complexities of society and life in general changes? This manifests itself in a debate about whether such things as a "right to privacy" are really logical extensions of basic constitutional principles, or misguided misinterpretations of it.
That debate is nasty and consequential enough without adding another layer on to it; namely, who cares what the Constitution does or doesn't say? We've got either a 5-4 ideological majority on the Court, or the numbers (a veto-proof one-party rule of Congress and/or a sympathetic President to boot) to do whatever the hell we want!
It's this transition from debating the meaning and intention of the Constitution, to the relevancy of the Constitution itself, that will spell the downfall of this nation.
We exist because of the consent of the governed. This is why I pay taxes I don't like to pay, observe laws I don't necessarily agree with, and acknowledge people I didn't vote for as my legitimate elected leaders. Start to screw with one of the basic foundational documents that underscores my buy-in to this system, and I start to ask myself some troubling questions. Just why the hell do I need to honestly pay my taxes? Why should I obey laws that I personally disagree with. And most troubling of all, so what if my candidate lost the election — this new guy can't legitimately tell me what to do.
We're not there yet as a nation. But we're getting much closer to this point than I ever imagined. Most people aren't going to reason things through the way I have in this essay. They're going to simply feel it in their gut. Principles they grew up with defining them as Americans no longer seem to exist. The government — never a real friend — is now seen as closer to the Sheriff of Nottingham than that "Mr. Smith" guy they once sent to Washington.
The kooks on the far Right and far Left have always held these beliefs. Where others were troubled about the implications of certain governmental actions or decisions, their abiding faith in the American Constitutional system of government helped them get through to better times. Take away the Constitution as a genuine check on governmental abuse, and you open the floodgates for a revolt.
The TEA party movement is the warning shot across the bow of the body politic. People who have never seriously contemplated getting off their couch and writing a letter to their Congressman are now actually out protesting and running for office. They are the vanguard of the effort to restore sanity and balance to a system that has lost its direction, and allowed personal ideology and political power to cast aside the very glue that holds this nation together — a respect for the rule of law and all it stands for, as embodied in the workings of the U.S. Constitution whose legal authority derives from the moral foundations found in our Declaration of Independence.
A battle for the nation's soul is currently underway. And underlying it all is the simple truth we all understood even as children back in our 5th grade civics class: in America, it's the consent of the governed that distinguishes us from most other political systems.
Lose the Constitution, and you lose that consent. Lose the consent, and the country dissolves.
The current spate of 5-4 decisions, along with the SCOTUS members' propensity, during speaking engagements, to broach the subject of legal precedents that exist in foreign countries should be within consideration certainly is more than enough to give one pause.
One could make a solid case for the statement; "All SCOTUS decisions should be 9-0 or 0-9." The fact that this is not the case coupled with what the public believes is the wholesale disregard that both Houses of Congress have for our founding documents; and it's no wonder that we hear the rumblings of the 'word that should never be spoken'; Secession.
For those who like to minimize the constitution, saying that "it's only a piece of paper" (which is what I used to say), imagine a football game where the ruling on the field are based on the ref's "understanding of the socio-economic context" of the infraction, instead of hard and fast rules; or imagine going to a store and buying something based on the price on the box, but at the checkout counter, the price changes based on your tax-bracket (which those who pay less may like — until they're told to pay more!).
Re: "Lose the Constitution, and you lose that consent. Lose the consent, and the country dissolves."
Isn't this the stated goal of the Øbama base, i.e., the Alinskyites?
The problem most progressives have with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is the fact that there exists a significant difference the Declaration's rights versus the progressive definition of rights.
The traditional meaning of a right is; "…something that exists by virtue of our humanity. You exist, therefore these rights exist.
For the progressive the definition of a right is significantly different. It is code for a handout they feel must be provided to people by government.
The statement; "Every American has the right to health care." is true enough. Americans have the right to buy insurance, they have the right to pay out of pocket, they have the right to seek out a physician that will provide for them at the rate they can pay, they have the right to seek out a charitable organization that will assist in the cost. But the statement; "I have a right to medical care therefore the government must provide me with medical care." is fantasy.
The problem most progressives have with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is the fact that there exists a significant difference the Declaration's rights versus the progressive definition of rights.
The traditional meaning of a right is; "…something that exists by virtue of our humanity. You exist, therefore these rights exist.
For the progressive the definition of a right is significantly different. It is code for a handout they feel must be provided to people by government.
The statement; "Every American has the right to health care." is true enough. Americans have the right to buy insurance, they have the right to pay out of pocket, they have the right to seek out a physician that will provide for them at the rate they can pay, they have the right to seek out a charitable organization that will assist in the cost. But the statement; "I have a right to medical care therefore the government must provide me with medical care." is fantasy.
The problem most progressives have with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is the fact that there exists a significant difference the Declaration's rights versus the progressive definition of rights.
The traditional meaning of a right is; "…something that exists by virtue of our humanity. You exist, therefore these rights exist.
For the progressive the definition of a right is significantly different. It is code for a handout they feel must be provided to people by government.
The statement; "Every American has the right to health care." is true enough. Americans have the right to buy insurance, they have the right to pay out of pocket, they have the right to seek out a physician that will provide for them at the rate they can pay, they have the right to seek out a charitable organization that will assist in the cost. But the statement; "I have a right to medical care therefore the government must provide me with medical care." is fantasy.
Bill:
There are two things that get me: 1) "Government has the right to [________ fill in ________]"; and 2) group rights.
I am afraid the SCOTUS determined long ago that the Constitution is irrelevant. As soon as the court started treating the Constitution as a "living document" subject to interpretation instead of the process to make it a living document called amendment the actual Constitution became irrelevant since any of us can interpret the same passage and come up with different meanings. Sorry to sound so gloomy but this horse has already left the barn and like the old saw it is too late to close the door.
Unfortunately for all of us there is no political entity that supports the Constitution and further supports literal interpretation until amended. Just like illegal alien entry there is no party willing to take the steps needed to fix the problem.
What would a literal interpretation do to the federal governemtn? Cut it significantly and kill off most entitlement programs. Won't happen since the Omessiah supporters have their hands out waiting for someone else to fill it with money. Great life when you don't need to work or save for the future.
The consent of the governed is no longer necessary for those in government for the same reason that the "consent of the parented" is not necessary for the parent of a small child. A parent does need the permission of his child to withhold privileges from him, punish him for infractions of the rules, or to make the rules in the first place, because the parent is physically dominant of the child and because the child is dependent upon the parent for his wellbeing. In the same manner, once a government has grown to the extent such that it is capable of physically or psychologically dominating the governed, and the governed are dependent upon the government for their wellbeing, government no longer requires the consent of the governed. "Because I can" becomes a legitimate justification at that point. Or to use another example, a rapist doesn't need "the consent of the raped" – particularly not after he's lured you into his van and asked you if his handkerchief smells like chloroform.
Sadly, government in the United States reached that point arguably around a century ago, and certainly by half a century ago. Whether our benevolent masters make the pretense of adhering to the constitution or not is almost irrelevant – they are capable of instituting a total authoritarian state with no justification whatsoever, and "we the people" are powerless to stop them. Even those who aren't dependent on government largess would be rendered unable to make a living at the swipe of a pen or the command of a despot. There are plenty of jail cells and bullets to dispose of any who resist. No band of ragtag rebels with musket and cannon would have a prayer of stopping a military apparatus such as the federal government commands, unlike 300 years ago during the war for independence (ask anyone who resisted Russian communist and German national socialism). While such a thing is more *possible* than *plausible*, when you consider the ease with which such a state could be established given the hopeless dependence of the people on the government, you realize how fragile, and ultimately meaningless, the constitution is from a practical perspective. In all reality, we should be grateful that government still gives us the courtesy of any justification at all for their actions, because they certainly don't have to. It's been popularized into a cliche, but there's actually a lot of profundity in the famous quotation: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have"
A truism need only be spoken once, and it is for all time.
"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard–the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money–the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law–men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims–then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter."
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion–when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you–when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice–you may know that your society is doomed.
From Francisco d'Anconia's treatise "Is Money the Root of all Evil?"
from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.
Who is John Galt? Does he walk among us?
That succinctly cover it, yes. The Constitution is a living compact between those who consent to be governed, and those who govern.
When those who govern treat the Constitution as trash, we may as well nominate a King and a Court of Nobles, and have done with it.
And if you consider the actions and proclamations of our politicians, our affluent, our famous, this is exactly what they consider themselves as: nobility.
We, of course, are all peasants.
Phil:
Excellent essay and many folks share your concerns about how long the “consent of the governed” will provide the social glue which allows us to work out our differences in an orderly and peaceful manner. When will a process, which has worked so well in the past, cease to work – and then what will happen?
My take on your thoughts is that people are much the same across time and across cultures. Colonial Americans revolted against a king’s usurpation of rights which were previously recognized. The French revolted against a monarchy which exemplified a widespread disgust with the personal corruption and moral degeneracy of a political system.
Although we no longer have ruling monarchs, the consent of the governed can’t be ignored in earlier eras because they lacked constitutional government or constitutions – if such were the case, there would have been no successful revolutions. And what unpredictable factors prompted revolutions achieved through civil violence and warfare as opposed to peaceful change as in the case of the English?
The roots of the French revolution, in particular, puzzle historians, the actual facts of daily existence in pre-revolutionary France have been distorted by time; the French populace didn’t all fit the image portrayed by Les Miserables – starving peasants and city dwellers ruled over by a handful of degenerate aristocrats. There was a thriving middle class in Paris, nightclubs, cabarets, theatres, 21st century morality would be easily recognized in that earlier era in regard to sexual relations among the common man and woman as well as within the ranks of the aristocracy.
Therefore, a relatively sophisticated society for its time reached a “snapping point” – what caused the “snap”, did it build up over time, how much of the call to arms was due to intellectuals like Rousseau, how much to the passions and resentments of the mob? The active revolution supposedly started with storming the Bastille – a relatively undefended fortress which required much less actual storming than celebrated in modern story and song. Nor was the King, Louis the XVI, immediately deposed and then executed – the violence built upon itself over ensuing weeks and then months.
As a young officer of the artillery, Napoleon Buonoparte (as he then spelled his name) was a dispassionate observer of the revolution, even to the point of personally witnessing the mob violence and subsequent massacres of those viewed as the governing class. And Napoleon, an eye witness, confessed his own inability to understand what actually caused the violence of the revolution; he noted within his writings the mob quickly took on a life of its own, uncontrollable, impossible to anticipate in advance, a fever which had to run its inevitable course. He was also puzzled by the ease with which the mob could have been dispersed by well-armed soldiers and the government’s failure to do so.
And the fever did run a very violent course indeed. For example, the princesse de Lamballe, a friend of Marie Antoinette, was dragged from her prison cell, killed, dismembered and her head along with various intimate parts of her anatomy placed on poles and paraded before the prison cell of Marie Antoinette accompanied by crude sexual comments prompted by de Lamballe’s supposedly lesbian relationship with the Queen. One drunken member of the mob claimed he had cut out the heart of the princesse and eaten it raw – and that may have been true given the undisputed savagery of the French revolutionists.
Later, after the fall of Toulon, 2,000 captured royalists were brutally massacred with bayonets and muskets by the attacking revolutionary army. Napoleon, as a military leader of the revolutionary forces, was aware of the executions although he later claimed to have been absent during the massacre. As a hardened military man and supreme opportunist, Napoleon viewed the revolution as a consummate realist would, unlike the academics who would later downplay the chaos and savagery to focus on the dawning of modern liberty.
But as historians describe the era, many of the conditions which currently inflict America are offered as “causes” of the French revolution; widespread unemployment, burning anger directed at members of the government, a severe financial crisis within the French treasury, inequitable taxation, devaluation of the currency, militant feminism (the Women’s March on Versailles), social resentments based on class differences, widespread dissatisfaction with formal religion and the Church were among the various causes named – and these causes existing in 1789 aren’t all that unfamiliar to Americans today.
My point here is that you can read and accept the “official” histories, which explain in a clear, logical progression the chronology of the Revolution and identify the main characters. Deaths attributed to the revolution are officially pegged at 170,000, but were probably much higher. The Reign of Terror, the Committee of Public Safety, the guillotine, Robespierre, the Jabobins – all these symbols of insanity and madness attributed to this period in time can’t be explained away as reasonable reactions of “the governed”, they can only be reported.
But reading between the pages of the official histories, a period of widespread madness started within French society, built to a horrible crescendo and then gradually declined before entering the Age of Napoleon. How much of this violence was necessary is hard to say, or to justify, based on “historical causes”. That the consent of the governed reached a snapping point is undeniable, that the ensuing violence was mostly unnecessary is also undeniable – but what prompted the events will never be completely understood – we do know “the governed” are dangerous when taunted into a state of murderous frustration.
P
Another great article. You could’ve entitled it:
A Republic, If We Can Keep It!
(In the interest of time (mine), I’m initially plagiarizing from Wiki on FDR.)
During WW II, FDR proposed the famous
“Four Freedoms that people everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:
1. Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of religion
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear”
Notice the slight of hand in changing “of” to “from”.
“His inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional US Constitutional values protected by its First Amendment, and endorsed a right to economic security and an internationalist view of foreign policy that have come to be central tenets of modern American liberalism. They also anticipated what would become known decades later as the "human security" paradigm in social science and economic development.”
So now we’re told by the Obami (none dare call them “Socialists” or “Marxists”) that we have “rights” & “entitlements” to lots of free things like healthcare
I saw on Beck yesterday an academic apologist for socialism saying that everybody has a “right to free food”. Hey, Marx was pontificating on farm policy in the British Library even tho he’d never met a farmer or anyone who’d ever met a farmer. How’d that work out?
As some Republican politician once said (don’t make me look it up):
It’s hard to run against the Democrats. Because they’re the party that proposes to give people free stuff. And it’s very, very hard to run against people promising free stuff. You have to say, “We, by contrast, will give you the opportunity to make your own way, while keeping a net under you lest you fall too far.”
And as P. J. O'Rourke said:
If you think medical care is expensive, wait 'til it's free!
BTW, Dental Care anybody got a pair of spare dentures left from a dead relative? True story: My 96-yr old neighbor with Alzheimer’s just had many of her teeth removed & her cheap daughter is wondering about the need to bother with false teeth! Dental Care is not covered under either the Senate or House bill, I understand, though some creative Federal judge may be able to read “Dental”, which, after all, comes under the concept of “health” care, as being part of the ultimate law. Wouldn’t even need to do penumbras upon emendations (or is it the other way around? Never get this straight; doesn’t matter.)
BTW, I’m shocked, shocked to see that Stupak may be giving in, tho Neville Chamberlin like, he’s not saying he’s “giving in”.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/09/is-bart-stupak-ready-to-flip
We are lost!
Have you read the Bill?
Some people say that any bill should be posted for at least 72 hrs before voting so that someone who can analyze such things has an opportunity to do so.
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
Seems that there's always somebody in favor of Obanmacare saying something snarky like “Read the bill; Start reading, keep reading until you are done. Am I missing something? ", implying that this person has himself read the bill.
I am a lawyer & this is crap.
I would first note that I’d bet that Nancy hasn’t read the Bill, which is why she gets tongue tied when asked about portions of it.
More important, there are two “Bills” now & have been a zillion previous multi- thousand page versions of “The Bill” & that things are going to be changed in “Reconciliation”, the process formerly known as “The Nuclear Option”.
That a Bill provision which says that “Section 1234(1) (A) (C) (iii) of the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, is hereby amended to substitute the word ‘or’ with the word ‘and’” requires one to get a copy of Section 1234(1) (A) (C) (iii) of the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, & read it to understand whatever version of Obamahopeydopeyhealthcare we’re talking about.
And that one doesn’t have to eat the whole egg to know it’s bad.
Don’t like that explanation? a Prof of Con Law at the U. Wisc, Ann Althouse replies that “just read it doesn't work on [her]. It is a statement that can arise only from ignorance or disingenuousness or some blend of the two."
Her reasoning can be found at
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=7428341245523228527
Observations, if I may, after having attended, early last Fall what I might call a “Decaf” Tea Party of perhaps 100 neighbors, where two non lawyers, who had tried to read HR 3200 were trying to get through it section by section one evening from 6:30 to 8:00 PM.
(1) These leaders, not lawyers (& don’t get me wrong, they’d obviously worked hard & long & were pretty sharp) tended to, er, gloss over (read: ignore) those cross references like the one which says something like “Section 1234 (a) (1) (iii) of the Social Security Act of 1935 is hereby amended to substitute the word ‘and’ for the word ‘or’ ”.
(2) They tended to miss the, um, nuances contained in a simple statement.
(3) They tended to miss the dog that didn’t bark.
(4) They get hung up on the fact that the bill doesn’t mention things like “illegal alien”, “abortion” & “rationing”.
(5) They didn’t understand how a court could interpret the legislative history of the bill to mean that abortion is covered. E.G., the fact that a proposal which would have added (in legalese) something like: “ this bill is in no way shape or form intended to cover abortions, cross our hearts & hope to die”, was specifically defeated.
(6) They didn’t understand how a Federal Judge could find penumbras upon emendations (or is it the other way around? Never get this straight).
(7) They get bogged down on what seem to be simple terms to accountants & lawyers, such as “adjusted gross income”. We spent 15 minutes on this term because the two leaders got that “deer in the headlights” look. I volunteered to the questioner: “for these purposes it means the first number on p. 2 of a typical individual’s 1040; that is “your gross income after certain adjustments but before deductions”. At that point a guy who identified himself as a tax accountant (!) proceeded to give a laundry list of examples of adjustments & deductions zzzzzzzzzz & the questioner asked why attorneys & accountants couldn’t just give a simple answer to a simple question & what about her social security income zzzzzzzzzzz.
(8) Finally, they didn’t understand how the House/Senate Conference works & all the goodies get snuck in, like “nothing in this bill shall apply to (& then some language follows which could only apply to, say, AARP). Thank goodness they hadn’t then heard of reconciliation (the process formerly known as “the nuclear option).
(9) Attendees got into arguments about whether Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews, or for that matter the two leaders were reliable sources.
But I'm OK with all this, because I understand Norman Rockwell's paintings about the Four Freedoms!
Inwood:
Yes. It would seem that when reason is not given a chance, common sense should take over and tell us not to support something that is incomprehensible, no matter how much time is allotted.
P
I've got it.
Obamacare, too big to fail.
OBAMACARE, TOO BIG TO FAIL.
There
Inwood,
I would think that the first challenge is that the Congressional Democrats don't care for the Senate Bill as it stands. Now the 'new' proposal that Barack Obama posted prior to the February 25th TV Conference has no legislative language; it's just a summary that you can see here http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/summary-presidents-proposal.pdf
But it hasen't been turned into legislative language yet, and couldn't be scored by CBO unless it was.
Spending Bills must originate in the House. If the democrats want to pass something with the reconcilliation process in the Senate; they have to have something to reconcile first. This means that the congressional democrats in the House must pass the Senate Bill, the President must sign it so it is law; then and only then does the Senate have a piece of legislation to reconcile.
This is why Nancy Pelosi has such a heavy lift trying to get a congressional majority in the House. The Senate said "trust me" to the house on cap & trade earlier this year, so a majority voted yes in Congress. Then the Senate said: "Gee the people hate this bill." and sawed that limb off after the House democrats had climbed out on it.
Now they're saying "trust me." once again they are promising to alter the abortion language and all kinds of other things for the House democrats. But once the bill is passed they could stiff these democrats once again.
Like I said earlier; until the President signs the bill into law, they have nothing to reconcile. What if Harry Reid just says; "The President has signed the bill, our work is done here. On to Illegal immigration." and the House democrats get hosed by the Senate once again. After all; all House seats are up for re-election. Only 1/3 of the Senate is vunerable.
Sedonaman
Yes, but alas, most legislation is that way.
People, including legislators with a law degree who have voted for a bill now law, are often surprised by things that are, you know, actually in the Law.
Like “Section 1234 (A) (1) (a) (i): “nothing in this Act shall apply to a corporation which has a facility in East Cupcake, New York.”
We are, alas, forced to rely on the media & commentators to call our attention to what's in a law entitled, say, "The Freedom From Pollution Act of 2010", the adoption of which will put us back in the stone age, while India & China, not so suicidal, will merrily pollute & pass us by. And the MSM, which has been mum on Climategate, will not tell us things that they don’t thing we should know, like the intent to repeal the Industrial Revolution. While giving us free medical care & free food, of course.
I am an optimist, but I fear for us, especially during the next 1-2 years.
Interesting comments all.
My sense is that the end of consent will come with a whimper instead of a bang. Rather than take to the ramparts, people will begin to gnaw away at the edges until the system begins to visibly suffer, and eventually collapse.
For the first time in my life I’m not going to fill out all the questions on my census form. I’ll gladly fill out the “how many” and “who”, but not questions about my lifestyle or number of toilets.
As a social scientist I know this is great data for future analysts. But now I dissent, both as a protest to things as they are, and because I don’t trust anymore exactly how this information will be used.
I’ll still pay my taxes, but as I did in 2009, I will now aggressively seek out every conceivable legal deduction to lessen this burden. I’ve always done this before to some extent, but never as aggressively as I did in 2009 when I incorporated for the first time. I saved a few thousand dollars doing this, which is not much in the long term scheme of things, but I still would have done it even if the savings was ten dollars. I routinely deduct meal and travel expenses, but now I make sure that every mile I drive for business purposes is deducted. I deduct the candy bar I ate on the road as well as the meal I ate. The government will not get one more dime from me than it is entitled to. I will no longer let the little things go by; I intend to preserve as much of what I’ve earned as I can.
I’ve never viewed the government as a “friend”, but now I’m beginning to see it as an enemy — an incompetent enemy now, but even incompetent enemies can be a real threat.
When guys like me start to pull back, the country is really poised for change. And once that genie is out of the bottle, it will be hard to put all the pieces back together again as they were before.
Bill:
Did I miss something? Article I, Section 7 says, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
I'm glad someone else is also going to forego most of the census questions. They can count me and my household members as the Constitution authorizes, but that's all, and I answered as such.
I noticed that the instructions mentione questions that are specifically authorized by law, and that the legal reference would appear by the questions that are so authorized. The only question with a legal reference by it was the one asking for my phone number.
I suppose I will hear from them. But I will pay the fine before I answer any of their social engineering questions.
Bill & Sedonaman
As some wag said once, I thought that they were Marxists, just not Groucho, Harpo…
Hail Fredonia!
First, let me remind you that in Law School, one does not go through the Constitution clause by clause. We studied cases, ya see. And Art I Sec 7 Cl 1has not been the subject of many cases. So I don’t remember formally studying this issue since my grammar school days in civics class.
So let me share my non-expert, but autodidact understanding with you:
We all agree that the above Constitutional clause specifically says that spending bills must begin in the House, but, as we have seen over our history, the intellectual (or intellectualoid) basis for many bills involving spending lies in the Administration, especially in Treasury, & the Senate’s power to amend is generally understood in practice to be so broad that The Senate can replace the entire text of a bill involving spending as it was passed in the House. Thus, commonsense dictionary definitions of “spending” don’t exactly solve the problem.
The good news is that SCOTUS has rejected the idea that the clause is a nullity, but the bad news is that it has never settled on the meaning of “spending” in the sense that it has decided how far a taxpayer can go in challenging an unquestionable spending law’s origin under this clause.
Thus, the House adopting the Senate version here & the Bill going immediately to the President is not an automatic law killer under this clause.
Anyway, if this “concept”, for lack of a better word, becomes law, I doubt (though I would not bet the ranch on my guess here) that SCOTUS will want to take the spending question on with this divisive political Law. And if it does, it will be long after the Law has become effective.
And to Bill’s point.
First, I think that you meant to say:
until the President signs the bill into law, they can attempt reconciliation.
Once he’s signed it, it’s law until repealed or amended through the usual process of both houses passing such repeal or amendment & presidential signing (Or a veto override).
Anyway, this proposed farandole, far beyond the usual reconciliation process, is the kind of thing that Liberals would attack as “shredding their Constitution”.
And they would attempt, a la Yoo & Barbee, to get the lawyers giving this advice disbarred.
And I don’t know the Rules of Congress at all & so I can only watch as 59, 51 Senators & a majority of The House do this “flea flicker” reconciliation.
Now some pure guess work
I would guess that Stupak is looking for a fig leaf to get over the abortion problem. I don’t think he wants to be “Congressman No” in the MSM & amongst his cohorts. I’d bet on him folding at the end & declaring that he has voted in good conscience for “healthcare in our time”, a la Neville C in 1938, with some kind of a “firm”, make that “reeeeeally, reeeeeeally firm”, promise to him that Congress will adopt the Stupak amendment down the road after this Senate “Bill” with House approval has become law & that the Pres will sign such amendment.
All with the same Neville C results, as the promised amendment, though faithfully introduced, remains bottled up in committee, sorry Bart, see ya later. Many will be “shocked” but few surprised.
I repeat: Obamacare; Too Big To Fail”.
And I see that the RC Clerics & deep-thinking RC Intellectuals, many of whom have been salivating over “free” healthcare for the poor for eons, are also looking for a fig leaf to support Obamacare while claiming their inalterable opposition to abortion as they continue to ask the faithful for more money to keep opposing abortion. Oh, wait. Some may have found this fig leaf (H/T Rush L):
"I actually think the Senate bill will more effectively prohibit federal funds from going to abortion," said Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at Catholic University of America in Washington. "That legislation will actually reduce the demand for abortion in the United States."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100309/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_abortion_q_a
We are lost!
Q 9 of the Short Census Form
http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/interactive-form.php
Q 6 of the long Census Form (American Community Survey)
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/ACS-1(info)(2010)%20Stateside%20English_web.pdf
ask about your race & in each form, Box two of the various laundry list of choices lists "Black, African Am (can't even write out "American"; not important), or Negro"
Negro?
Who designed these forms, Dan Rather?
BTW
I should mention that I relied heavily on The Heritage Guide To The Constitution in writing my explanation of Art I Sec 7 Cl 1. I recommend it highly for lawyers & non lawyers.
Sedonaman,
No, I don’t think you missed anything.
Inwood,
Maybe I heard wrong. It's entirely possible as I'm certainly no Constitutional expert. Well, maybe as compared to a progressive.
To all,
Not to take a 'me too' attitude toward this, but I decided long ago that we were only going to answer the 'how many' and 'what race' questions on the census. When I read my first article on the census I went to the linked page and found about a 12 page questionnaire there; with everything from types of appliances, income derived from the property, job information, and a plethora of other things that are none of the Imperial Federal Governments' business.
As opposed to some of you others, I'm not worried at all about the veiled threat from the Bureau that an incomplete form will cause them to send person to the house. I live so far out in the boondocks that Google Maps can't find my address and hasn't been able to since it was first assigned to my property back in March of 2006. So; lot'sa luck finding my house with your little GPS device.
As far as tax liability is concerned. We've finally got everything in place on our acreage, so this is the last year we file a personal 1040. As of now we are a farm, with all the attendant deductions and write-offs that such an entity may legally take. I've written an annual check to the IRS for almost as long as I've been married (over 20 years). I just bought a tractor, a new truck, feed bunks, water tanks, cows, hogs, put up sheds, and dug water lines, put up fence and all that stuff. Whoosh! Right off the top! Uncle Sam's last contribution from this household goes in on April 15th 2010. THEY CAN B…. well, no reason to get nasty I guess.
Bill
It's OK. One doesn't have to be a Constitutional lawyer to pontificate on the Constitution
A copy of my e-mail to a guy who asks me what I think of a chain letter from a lawyer who thought that HR 3200 (remember that?) had a lot of unconstitutional things in it.
*****************
XXX
[Personal opening omitted]
He correctly noted the practical results of what is being bandied about as Obamacare, a moving target, but he’s kinda, sorta in a time warp Constitution wise, shall we say.
But let me begin by noting that the Constitutionality of whatever hopey-changey-health-care-reform leglislation we’ll get is the least of our problems. It will be moot, a sidebar. We are in the realm of unlimited federal power, where previously successful assaults on the Constitution will be taken to legitimize future ones.
Now, I do not pretend to have any Constitutional expertise, but since shall we say, Modern Constitutional Doctrine (“MCD”) doesn’t require any knowledge of the actual, you know, Constitution, or of The Law for that matter, what the heck. It’s all about feelings, Oh, Oh, Oh feeeelings, so I’ll try to explain MCD for dummies (i.e., non-Loony Leftists). BTW, don’t take what I say today as gospel since MCD is a moveable feast so to speak.
Your lawyer here, like “originalists”, “plain meaning” guys, or “federalism” guys, is asking, in effect, “What would the framers do?”
This question is treated by “Constitutional Scholars” as the equivalent of asking “What would Jesus do” & is met with as much disdain.
Now, the “go to” Media “Constitutional Scholars” are the usual suspects: generally law school Profs. Surprise: they almost always liberal; far-out liberal. Don't like characterizations of liberals as liberal? OK, let's stick to "scholars". One of the ironic things from the point of scholarship is that there was wholesale pontificating about Bush exceeding his power & wholesale pronunciamentos about the NSA program being an “illegal surveillance” & thus constituting an “explosive scandal”, but alas, no scholarship flowed from these folk. That is, there was sparse citation of laws, rules, or regs or cases proving that they were right in their pronunciamentos. It’s the kind of thing that would get one a flunking grade in law school! And the kind of thing they blithely dismiss Rush Limbaugh & Glen Beck as doing. And these are the experts who said that Bush should’ve been impeached for “shredding” the Constitution with the Patriot Act & who now are strangely silent about Obama’s extending its life.
Seems that 95% of law professor political contributions during Election 2008 went to Barack Obama, with only 5% going to McCain. See
http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/law_professor_contributions/
Here’s what seems like a parody but is simply my compilation of what critics with whom I agree have noted about MCD, a/k/a, Liberal feel-good jurisprudence:
The purpose, in today’s diverse complicated world, of the Federal Courts, especially SCOTUS, is not simply to interpret the Constitution as originally written, but as a “living document’ with no fixed meaning, subject to changing interpretations in accordance with the zeitgeist; to re-imagine; to recognize the infinite, inexhaustible elasticity of the commerce & general welfare (spending) clauses so as to bring to that plain vanilla document a progressive jurisprudence; a jurisprudence that embraces what is good & right rather than one which resists it, a jurisprudence which re-interprets the right to equality, to justice; a jurisprudence which reaches a rich diversity of results that our Founders, limited as they were by their genetic heritage, never imagined.
And you should realize that the position of many non-lawyers who see themselves as beneficiaries of government largesse is that “this ‘stuff’ must be constitutional” since so many otherwise intelligent people believe that there can be a free lunch. If the people, by some strange accident, elected an originalist, plain meaning, or federalism president who actually tried to govern as such, Congress would have him impeached!
So, to your lawyer, pace; what’s past is past & Medicare & Social Security are the law.
And he’s ignoring the clear probability that the Federal Judiciary, under MCD will hold that whatever hopey-changey-health-care-reform is enacted indeed passes Constitutional muster.
And that even if whatever hopey-changey-health-care-reform bill as passed were to specifically exclude coverage for abortion & illegal aliens, can we not assume that the Federal Judiciary, again under MCD, will hold that it is unconstitutional to pass a universal healthcare bill which does not provide universal coverage for the universe of health needs of anyone on our land.
Some originalists, plain meaning, or federalism guys, like your guy apparently, claim: Medicare is unconstitutional; Social Security is unconstitutional; the vast majority of all federal spending is unconstitutional; & Universal Federal Healthcare will be unconstitutional.
But I must live as if these present things are constitutional since the courts have told us that they are & I’d bet on the courts upholding any whatever hopey-changey-health-care-reform bill that’s passed.
However, in the case of current HR 3200, the public, including us selfish geezers, especially us selfish geezers, have seen that it will mean rationing, long delays, Death Panels, illegal alien coverage, abortion coverage, etc. &, by golly, some people are actually balking. But will they be fooled by its successor, Obamacare lite?
If you feel that I’ve blown this lawyer off, & that I’ve written you a cynical brief rather than a scholarly one, then I suggest that you read:
(1) Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin, especially chapters 4 & 5 on the Federal usurpation of almost every issue under the “commerce clause”.
(2) An article in the WaPo demonstrating that a health insurance mandate is unconstitutional:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/the_small_matter_of_the_consti.html
&
(3) An article by Andy Napolitano of FOX News:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html
Note: I’m not sure that these three critics have found that Obamacare, whatever that is now, has constitutional problems not found in those statutes mentioned above which have already been upheld as constitutional.
Just don’t bet against the forces of darkness! Wait ‘til you see HR 666!
Regards
[Inwood]
Inwood:
Sorry to disagree, but to me “raising revenue” means the government takes taxes in; spending means it sends tax money out. So I don’t see why spending couldn’t originate in the Senate, or even the courts for that matter. [I recall a case many years ago in which a judge in Missouri ordered a local government to spend money on busing. I would wager that if you dug deep enough, you’d find a similar federal case.]
"I'm glad someone else is also going to forego most of the census questions."
MM, I am a social-service agency property manager. None of my tenants – not one – will fill out the census. Rather amusing, looking at that huge pile of unopened envelopes in the front lobby…
LAM,
Are you suggesting that the number of working poor is rountinely underrepresented in the census? Horrors!!!
Perhaps you could fill them in for them, and ensure an appropriate flow of federal funds into your neighborhood.
*tongue now removed from cheek*
Last Angry Man,
“Rather amusing, looking at that huge pile of unopened envelopes in the front lobby…” Personally; I cannot wait to read your description regarding officials from the Census Bureau camping out in the lobby and calling for federal backup to ‘force’ compliance with this census. Should be a laugh riot! A real 'must see TV' moment ROTFLMAO
MM: there's a thought. Hmm, still lot's of stimulus funds available…
Bill: I wish them luck. These people are largely nuts (yes, that's a professional term).
sedonaman
C’mon. Rather than try to be the smartest guy on this thread, I went with Bill's phrase "spending", not realizing that you were correcting him.
His point was how a money bill could “originate” in the Senate.
Actually, since we're in the correcting mode, the clause referred to as the "Spending Clause" is Section 8 Clause 1, which begins "The Congress shall have the power to lay & collect taxes…."
So corrected, my post is clear about the House being the specifically listed originator under Section 7, Clause 1 for "Bills for Raising revenue", which is why it is called the “Origination Clause”. Except, that is, for the major, um, qualifications I set forth Mrs. Lincoln, which, as I demonstrated, are large enough to make the clause a nullity as a practical matter, tho SCOTUS has said that the clause is not (exactly) a nullity.
FYI, since we must be precise, origination of state revenue raising or spending, which you mention, is nowhere found in the US Constitution, so the case you are trying to recall is irrelevant to this discussion.
Further proof that we are lost
Democrats Prepare “Slaughter Solution” to Ram Unpopular Health Care Takeover Through Congress Without a Vote
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=796
Even if you don't think that they'll actually do this, the fact that they could think it….
Is this a bill I see before me, or is it a bill of the mind?
Inwood, I'd just read that very piece at that site less than an hour ago.
All of which supports the claim that Democrats don't want to Govern – they want to RULE.
LAM
But THEY know better.
See, e.g.,
NYS Law proposed to prohibit salt in food prepared by restaurants.
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=+A10129%09%09&Summary=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y
H/T Althouse
OK, it’ll never be adopted. Right.
Hey, is this "settled science"?
Actually, I blame Nixon.
Anyway, in regard to counting the votes, Michael Barone has a WSJ article today in which after some analysis, he concludes that he doesn't think that Nancy has the votes:
OPINION MARCH 11, 2010.
Can Nancy Pelosi Get the Votes?
The Senate bill's abortion language is not the House Speaker's only problem.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703701004575113292688090292.html
Regarding "the consent of the governed", would it be too much to expect that ALL 50 states — or at least 2/3 of them (34) — to secede from the Federal Government. I know it sounds ridiculous, but instead of having a "constitutional convention" (read: destroy the basis of our republic), why don't we cite the numerous violations of the Federal Government, like with did with Geoge III, and "reestablish the union" (more accurate and has less "baggage" than "leave the union")?
LAM & MM
Re the faded forms on the floor, "we don't need your stinkin’ forms".
When I looked up my ancestors ‘round the time of Roots, I found that the immigrant ancestors were not in the 1880 census & so I will concede that there probably has been some actual undercounting in the lower socio-economic areas.
But, not to worry, I understand that the Community Organizers who brought us "voting the dead" were on top of this in 2000 & are even more prepared for 2010.
For example, inner-city Detroit has become largely empty. In the 1990 census they managed to still find 1MM people but in 2000 they had to settle on 950M. The current estimate (2007) is barely over 900M. I don't believe that anyone knows if it's 800M or 1MM. But ACORN will come through, you betcha.
Can we say that the Dems need some "espirit da corpse"?
Well, not yet. Don't get overconfident.
Pelosi to Rahm: Cool it with the deadlines
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/Waxman_House_doesnt_want_a_deadline.html#
Pass Obamacare!
Democrats could use more enthusiasm, says Jonathan Chait: “Democrats face an enormous problem here. The electorate that shows up in November could be far more Republican than the electorate as a whole. In these circumstances, it seems like the party’s number one imperative has to be shoring up the base and giving its voters a reason to go to the polls in November.” His solution: pass ObamaCare! Which, of course, will only fire up conservatives even more.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions
deleeuw:
The original founding fathers who wrote the the Constitution fought bitterly to get it ratified, and they were basically your White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Can you imagine the turmoil that would result with a pluralistic society, that has a cultural bandwidth ranging from dc to daylight, trying to agree on anything so monumental?
sedonaman, regarding if our current society would agree on the idea, the answer is most likely a big "NO"! Or, it may end up like Europe — and we all know how well THAT's going!
Progressive House Dem Chair likes "'Slaughter Solution" so they won't be "forced" to vote on Sen Bill
On ABC’s “Top Line” today, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, said that scenario is attractive to many House Democrats who have serious reservations about the Senate bill.
“I don’t need to see my colleagues vote for the Senate bill in the House. We don’t like the Senate bill. Why should we be forced to do that?” said Woolsey, D-Calif. “But what we need to know, before any Senate bill is passed, that we have enough of the fixes that we’ve asked for, that we will be satisfied with the final product as a beginning for health care [reform].”
Asked if she would be comfortable with the House voting to deem the bill passed, rather than actually taking a recorded vote on the Senate-passed bill, Woolsey said: “I would be OK with that.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/03/dem-rep-lynn-woolsey-house-may-pass-senate-bill-without-recorded-vote.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Here is the case I was referring to in my post above about a judge ordering spending [it was Kansas, not Missouri]:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/kc_schools_a_case_study_in_lib.html
Woops! It was Missouri.
What's your point? Did you read my original point of 3/9 @ 8:15PM & my answer of 3/10 @6:20 PM to your comment?
BTW you just wrote "spending" even though you pettifogged my use of that term on 3/9. And Rush L said in the second hour of his broadcast today
“ 'Spending Bills’ must begin in the House”.
Phil:
Tend to agree with your comment of March 9th, Americans aren’t immune to violent civil disobedience, but our diverse, multi-cultural populace doesn’t provide the cultural bonds needed to carry out a prolonged and coordinated opposition to the government. And, I’m of the humble opinion that failure to completely fill out the census forms doesn’t constitute “civil disobedience” in the French revolution sense of the term – in fact, we’re reduced to such meaningless acts out of frustration since we have so few practical options to express our disgust – captive birds in a gilded cage, we’re well-fed, well taken care of, but with very limited freedom of movement – or resistance.
However, the change in attitude you describe is an insightful analysis of the current situation within this country – solid citizens who are beginning to see government as their common enemy rather than as a responsible agent of the citizenry. History may provide no guide for present day America, but what has always struck me as odd about the French Revolution are two things historians seem to deliberately downplay or completely overlook: a gradual loss of the commonly held illusions needed to support “consent of the governed” and the obvious weakness of the French government’s response to the uprisings.
Taking the latter first, worth noting are Napoleon’s observations that disciplined troops, the armed forces, or what they called the National Guard, could have easily dispersed the mobs and possibly contained the revolution before it gravitated into an uncontrolled insanity (admittedly, that’s only a speculative possibility). How could the French rulers and their military leaders allow a mob to force its way into the Tuileries Palace to confront the King face to face (he was intimidated but not physically harmed during that incident).
The loyal Swiss Guards stationed at the Palace were slaughtered to the last man by the mob after Louis the XVI had ordered them to lay down their arms and offer no resistance – although, in his defense, this middle aged ruler never imagined the mob would vent its fury on the Swiss Guard after they were ordered to stand down – and the mob’s fury included dismemberment, mutilation, roasting and symbolic cannibalism (dipping bread into the Guards’ blood). Nor were Guards the only victims, the mob slaughtered the palace servants as well, men, women and children. Where were the loyal French armed forces while this was happening? It would be similar to a mob breaching the White House’s defenses to confront the president within the Oval Office after dismembering every Secret Service officer, murdering all the secretaries, gardeners and maintenance workers and, during which, our professional Army was nowhere to be seen and took no subsequent retaliation for the atrocity,
Was a portion of the French citizenry’s contempt for their rulers predicated on the perceived weakness or lack of personal courage of those in power? Did the armed forces share that contempt? Did contempt contribute to losing the consent of the governed? And does that historically parallel the current contempt many Americans feel for our leaders – a contempt rooted in our leaders’ obvious inability to deal forcibly and effectively with terrorists? Or, an inability to defend our country’s physical borders from any and all who wish to violate them? Or, the absurd reversal of a previously announced intention to criminally try terrorists within a major American city; a rescinding necessitated by a fear of retaliation and the negative effect such retaliation would have on their political careers. It’s increasingly difficult to characterize American politicians as courageous and hard nosed men and women when their motives and actions related to protecting American citizens are evaluated.
The Obama regime isn’t a collection of George Pattons and Audie Murphys to be sure, rather I believe they’re seen as the typical coterie of modern metrosexuals, exhibiting desirable feminine as well as masculine traits within certain situations, but not the type of people who instill confidence when hostile forces threaten Americans. Did the French also perceive their leaders in a similar fashion – weak, degenerate aristocrats who had lost the personal courage and integrity their ancestors had once possessed and would therefore offer an ineffectual resistance to hostile change?
And much has been made of the famous thinkers who provided the intellectual justifications for the French revolution. But these intellectuals never led the revolutionary forces, that task was left to other men – and women. How did the ordinary Joe Frenchmen in the street lose their commonly held illusions which legitimized and justified rule by aristocrats and members of the Church’s hierarchy? At one time, the French citizenry must have believed such rule was justifiable and effective in protecting their welfare – what caused that belief to change?
We know a widespread consent of the governed is supported by commonly held illusions – we understand and accept the fact our Constitution is, in reality, an old piece of parchment housed in a government building – it has no power in and of itself to guide events, that power is held in proxy by ordinary men and women who act on our behalf – or so we claim to believe. The ideas expressed within the Constitution and Declaration of Independence form the intangible bedrock of our belief that all Americans willingly accept these high ideals as immutable truths and will act in accordance with these same truths. But do we continue to believe in this treasured illusion with the same fervor, the same confidence as our ancestors did?
When we grow cynical and increasingly suspicious that our cherished illusions are a fraud, when events and the actions of our politicians continuously reinforce our cynicism – is that when the consent of the governed begins to disappear? I don’t know how or when this loss of consent will express itself in the future, I don’t think anyone can predict what might happen, we may become the obedient and contented serfs of a modern technological age as the Europeans have become or we may take more drastic measures to change our political system.
Isn’t there a distinct difference between the American and French Revolutions? A portion of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen) states; “The nation is essentially the source of all sovereignty; neither can any individual, nor any body of men, be entitled to any authority, which is not expressly derived from it.”
The DOI however; states “…that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
These seem to describe two distinctly different relationships between government and citizens. In one the state is ascendant, in the other it is not.