Rss

  • youtube

The Founders’ limitation on direct democracy – Part II – Checks and balances

Posted by :admin On : January 13, 2017
1

Category: Archives, Constitution, Government

As discussed in Part I, the Founders wished to establish a form of government that would address the abuses inherent in various other forms of government. They chose a democratic republic which they believed would insure the continuing preservation of the new nation. The first great challenge in writing a Constitution for the democratic republic was to create a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, between the large and small states, and between the national government and the states. In the legislative arena this was accomplished by establishing a bicameral legislature to insure that individual state voices and diverse regional interests would not be overwhelmed, ignored, or trampled upon by larger states and/or coalitions of states. The Founders believed that it was necessary to balance the will of the majority of the population (guarded by the House) with the will of the majority as determined by the states (guarded by the Senate).[1] The creation of a bicameral legislature was an overt action of the Founders to impose a Constitutional limitation on direct democracy. Without such a balancing of power it is doubtful that the Convention would have produced a document acceptable to the representatives of the former colonies. A second overt action of the Founders to impose a Constitutional limitation on democracy was establishment of the Electoral College. The remainder of this article will address this subject.

Why did the Founders establish the Electoral College?

The concern for a system of checks and balances in electing the head of the executive branch of government was also on the minds of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. When debating the procedure for selecting the president, three methods were proposed and subsequently rejected.

1. Congress would select the President – This proposal was rejected for three reasons. First, it was felt that this method would engender rancorous partisanship that would inhibit future legislative efforts. Second, because Congress was such a small body, there was concern that foreign governments could more easily influence the outcome of an election through bribery and corruption. Lastly, the election of the head of the executive branch of government by the legislative branch would compromise the president’s independence from the legislative branch.
2. State legislatures would select the President – This proposal was rejected because of the fear that the federal republic would be undermined through erosion of federal authority by a president that was too indebted to the states.
3. The President would be elected by a popular national vote – This was rejected “not because the framers distrusted the people but rather because the larger populous states would have much greater influence than the smaller states and therefore the interests of those smaller states could be disregarded or trampled.” A further concern was that a national popular election would encourage regionalism through creation of coalitions among the more populous states which would damage lasting national unity.[2]

To solve the dilemma, the Convention delegates appointed a “Committee of Eleven” to study the problem and propose a viable alternative which resulted in establishment of the Electoral College.[3] Again, this action was the Founders’ second explicit action to impose a Constitutional limitation on direct democracy.

James Madison, a signor of the Constitution and often referred to as its father, wrote:

The Constitution is nicely balanced with the federative and popular principles; the Senate are guardians of the former, and the House of Representatives of the latter; and any attempts to destroy this balance, under whatever specious names or pretenses that may be presented, should be watched with a jealous eye.[4] [emphasis added]

In the election of a president under the Electoral College system, the smaller states receive a slightly greater voice, proportionally speaking, than the larger states. In other words, the Electoral College system tends to slightly over-represent voters in the smaller states, but at the same time adds a measure of protection to those states without the clout to defend their interests from those of much larger states.

How the Electoral College Works

The Electoral College is a process whereby once each four years Americans voting in the Presidential election cast ballots to select which persons that will serve as electors to select the President of the United States. In each state, a candidate for the Presidency has his or her own set of electors that appear on the ballot. These electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party within that state. Even though a candidate’s name appears above the list of his or her electors on the election ballot, the voter is actually voting for those electors. The candidate whose electors receive the most votes in a state receive all of that state’s electoral votes except for Nebraska and Maine which award an electoral vote to the winner of the popular vote in each Congressional district within those states.[5]

The number of electoral votes each state has is determined by the number of senators and members of the House Representatives in that state. For example, Oklahoma has seven electors because it has two senators and five representatives. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators which total 535 electors. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution gave three electoral votes to the District of Columbia, an amount equal to the least number of electors a state may have. Thus, there are 538 electors. To become the President, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of the electoral votes which is 270.[6] If there is a tie of 269 votes for each candidate, the House of Representatives selects the President from among the top three candidates.[7]

Subsequent to the casting of votes by each state’s electors in December following the election, the governor of each state submits a Certificate of Ascertainment which declares the winning presidential candidate based on the electors’ votes. That Certificate along with each elector’s Certificate of Vote is forwarded to Congress and the National Archives. Each state’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January.[8] The newly elected president is sworn in and takes office on January 20.

2016 Presidential Election and the Electoral College

Columnist E. J. Dionne, a member of the Washington Post Writers Group, believes the majority of Americans will be disempowered in 2017 because Hilary Clinton won the popular vote by approximate 2.6 million. However, Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote by a relatively wide margin of 306 to 232 and became the President-Elect. Dionne writes:

The inherent illogic of our practices, and the fact that they have nothing to do with the Founders’ intentions, is underscored by this contradiction: We are supposed to ignore the national popular vote, but deeply respect Trump’s narrow 77,000 popular-vote advantage in three states that will tip the Electoral College his way.[9]

But Dionne is wrong on all three counts. The practices of the Electoral College are very logical when considering that the Founder’s reasons behind it are based on the principles of a republican form of government. Those practices have everything to do with the Founders’ intentions for they specifically rejected the election of the president by popular vote. And we must respect the outworking of the Electoral College, even when it contradicts the popular vote because it balances the federative and popular principles of a republican form of government about which Madison spoke.

Dionne calls the workings of the Electoral College an “outdated system” which will allow the current government to pursue “quite radical policies destined to arouse considerable resistance from the disempowered majority.”[10] But disempowerment has been the protocol of liberals for decades through wrongful interpretation of the Constitution in ways contrary to its plain language and intent of the Founders, through decisions of unelected judges that effectively legislate through their decrees, and a federal bureaucracy that misinterprets and corrupts the laws passed by Congress and thereby undermines the will of the people while pursuing the liberal agenda. Two major examples of this judicial and bureaucratic over-reach are the so-called public “bathroom policies” pushed by the LGBT lobby and the pro-abortion policies of the left which the majority of Americans oppose.

So are both the supposed unfairness of the Electoral College and the wrongdoings of the unelected judiciary and bureaucracy morally equivalent? Absolutely not! The Electoral College is working as the Founders intended. Without the restraining force of the Electoral College, the heavily populated liberal strongholds clinging to the east and west coasts would steamroll the interests of the citizens of a vast majority of states which eventually will become little more than administrative districts used by the federal government to impose the will of the concentrated majority on a powerless minority located in what many consider to be merely “fly over” country. The potential power of these concentrated and growing majorities without the restraining influence of the Electoral College becomes alarmingly clear when examining the following statistics.

• In 2015, nine states accounted for over half the population of the United States (meaning that the remaining forty-one states accounted for the other half).[11] Six of these nine states border the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean, or the Pacific Ocean. The remaining three border the Great Lakes.
• California is the most populous state with slightly over 39,000,000 residents. It requires the populations of twenty-two states having the lowest populations plus the District of Columbia to equal or slightly exceed the population of California.[12]
• The eleven most populous states have 270 electoral votes, enough to elect the president without the need for even one vote from the remaining thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia.[13]
• In the 2016 presidential election, 2,622 counties with mostly smaller populations voted for the Republican nominee while 490 counties with mostly larger populations voted for the Democratic nominee.[14] This large-versus-small county voting split is apparent even in those Democratic states with large population counties that vote Democratic and counties with relatively small populations that vote Republican.

Dionne’s principal argument against the Electoral College process is that it is unfair and inherently antidemocratic because some votes do not have the same proportional impact as other votes which violates the so-called “one-man-one vote” proposition. They contend that one man ought to have one vote proportional to all other votes. But proportional equality in the vote of each citizen was not the intent of the Founders for reasons which we have previously discussed, i.e., balancing both federative and popular principles as opposed to a direct democracy in electing the president which was specifically rejected by the Founders.

Should the nation abandon the Electoral College process for electing the president in favor of a popular vote, several undesirable consequences will occur. Campaigns would tend to ignore individual voters and the important interests of their state and region. Rather, the candidates would conduct an almost continual media campaign aimed at voters in the most populous regions of the country (e.g., the nine states comprising over half the population of the United States). Candidates would heavily invest in electronic media advertising and have little interest in mobilizing constituencies, addressing the interests of specific groups, or voter registration and education. Since the population centers are largely urban which tend to be more liberal, presidential campaigns would focus on and become substantially beholden to liberal interests and brush aside the beliefs and interests of the remainder of the country. Rather than being an illogical, outdated practice as claimed by Dionne, the Electoral College in light of the growing power of the more populous states is more than ever a critical component in preserving the republican form of government and balancing federative and popular principles by which it operates.

Kathleen Parker is also a member of the Washington Post Writers Group. Unlike Dionne who wishes to scrap the Electoral College altogether, Parker wanted to use the Electoral College to deprive Donald Trump of the presidency. In a recent editorial column, Parker encouraged Republican electors to ignore the rules and wishes of the voters in their respective states and not cast their 306 Electoral vote for Donald Trump. Parker hoped that a defection of 37 electors will reduce Trump’s electoral votes to 269, deprive him of the presidency, and send someone else to the Oval Office.[15] Parker wrote:

If there are 37 Republicans among them with the courage to perform their moral duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous president-elect, a new history of heroism will have to be written. Please be brave.[16]

In an attempt to support her case, Parker quoted Alexander Hamilton who wrote that the Electoral College

“…affords a moral certainty that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Electors would prevent the “tumult and disorder” that would result from the candidate’s exploiting “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.”[17]

It’s interesting to note that Parker’s own low intrigue readily ignores over sixty-one million voters who judged Donald Trump as having been endowed with the requisite qualifications for the presidency (at least when compared with Clinton) in favor of a few “brave” Electoral voters who must “perform their moral duty and protect the nation from a talented but dangerous president elect.”

We should not be surprised at Ms. Parker’s audacity for this is the typical mindset of our liberal betters. In their minds they think they know what’s good for the country far better than the voters, and if they could just get rid of that pesky Electoral College thing they would really show the electorate what’s best for them.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] David Barton, “Electoral College: Preserve or Abolish?” Wallbuilder.com. January 2001,
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=95 (accessed December 12, 2016).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “What is the Electoral College?” U.S. Electoral College, National Archives and Records Administration, https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html (accessed December 12, 2016).
[6] Ibid.
[7] David Barton, “Electoral College: Preserve or Abolish?” Wallbuilder.com, January 2001.
[8] “What is the Electoral College?” U.S. Electoral College, National Archives and Records Administration.
[9] E. J. Dionne, “The disempowered majority of 2017,” Tulsa World, December 9, 2016, A-10,
[10] Ibid.
[11] State Population by Rank, 2015, Infoplease.com. http://www.infoplease.com/us/states/population-by-rank.html (accessed December 13, 2016).
[12] Ibid.
[13] “What is the Electoral College?” U.S. Electoral College, National Archives and Records Administration.
[14] Zeke J. Miller and Chris Wilson, “See a Map That Shows Exactly How Donald Trump Won,” Time, December 1, 2016. http://time.com/4587866/donald-trump-election-map/ (accessed December 13, 2016).
[15] Kathleen Parker, “Or will the electors revolt?” Tulsa World, December 10, 2016. A-15
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.

The Founders’ limitation on direct democracy – Part I – Republicanism

Posted by :admin On : January 6, 2017
0

Category: Archives, Constitution, Government

Republicanism refers to the principles or theory of the republican form of government. It can also mean the principles, practices, or policies of the Republican Party of the United States, but that is not the meaning which will be discussed herein.

When American colonists won independence from the British, the Founding leaders deliberately set about to establish a form of government that would address the deficiencies found in other forms of government and to curb the excesses thereof. After considerable thought, debate, and deliberation, they chose to become a democratic republic. “Republic” refers to public concerns, that is, the general welfare of the public expressed in political terms. A democratic republic is not a totalitarian democracy controlled by one or a few or a direct democracy which is absolutely controlled by the populace.[1] Because the Founders had experienced the excesses of a capricious and excessive use of power by their former rulers, they were particularly interested in a form of government that would limit the use of power by its various components. This limitation was accomplished by a relatively complex system of checks and balances on each component of government at the federal level (Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary) and balancing the needs of a national government with the rights of its member states in their areas of self-governance.

The America form of government was to be a constitutional democracy based on laws as opposed to an absolute democracy based on the direct will of the people. The intricacies and workings of the Americans’ republican form of government are spelled out in the Constitution and Amendments thereto. Russell Kirk in his brilliant description of the American Republic wrote that the Constitution guiding the American political state is but an expression of the “…laws, customs, habits, and popular beliefs that existed before the Constitutional Convention met at Philadelphia.” These laws, customs, habits, and beliefs were derived from and molded by their political experience under colonial rule, the legacy of English law, efforts at governance under the Articles of Confederation, and perhaps most important the general consensus regarding certain moral and social concerns.[2] These moral and social concerns were substantially formed by a Judeo-Christian view of the world and how it worked.

In every age and people group men desire two things: freedom and order. These are inherently conflicting needs which are found within the operation of governments as well as in the personal affairs of men. The task of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention was to create a government which would harness these conflicting needs.

The Convention delegates had a great aversion to direct democracies which they saw as resting on the shifting sands of feelings and passions of the moment. Instead they chose the firm foundation of a democratic republic built upon laws created by elected representatives.

With unambiguous language, the Convention delegates and other Founders expressed their deep distrust of direct democracy. The following examples were assembled by David Barton in “Republic v. Democracy.”[3]

[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. [James Madison]

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. [John Adams]

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way…The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness (excessive license) which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty. [Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment]

We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism…Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt. [Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution]

[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived. [John Quincy Adams]

A simple democracy…is one of the greatest of evils. [Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration]

In democracy…there are commonly tumults and disorders…Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth. [Noah Webster]

Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state; it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage. [John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration]

It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion. [Zephaniah Swift, Author of America’s First Legal Text]

Unfortunately, many Americans today seem to be unable to distinguish the significant differences between a republic and a democracy. The principal difference is found in the source of authority to which each defers. A pure democracy operates by a majority vote and reflects the immediate will of the majority whereas a republic operates under the rule of law. The first reflects the majority of popular feelings of the moment (sometimes called a “mobocracy” by the Founders) and the second rests on the laws discussed and passed after thoughtful deliberation by the elected representatives of the people. In a republic, a constitution protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government even it was elected by a majority of voters. In a direct or pure or direct democracy, the majority is not restrained and can force its will on the minority.

However, it would be wrong to suppose that all laws passed by a republican form of government are just. There is one additional requirement necessary to create an enduring republic attentive to the general welfare of the people. The laws passed by a republic’s elected representatives are only as good as the sources upon which they based the laws. Here we transcend into the realm of truth, and it is the conflict about what constitutes truth that we find the root cause of the culture wars in modern America. The importance of this issue is of the first magnitude for laws based on untruths and false views of the world and the nature of man will eventually cause any system of government to fail including both republics and democracies.

John Adams was just one of many Founders and first generation of Americans who identified the singular source of truth for the principles of civil government.

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity…From the day of the Declaration…they (the American people), were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of their Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of conduct.[4] [emphasis added]

Likewise, Noah Webster unequivocally identified the source of truth for the republican principles upon which the nation was founded.

The brief exposition of the constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.[5] [emphasis added]

However, the acid of Enlightenment egalitarianism promoted by a liberal, progressive, relativistic, materialist society is ever eating away Adams’ indissoluble bond between the principles of civil government and the principles of Christianity.

One such acid promoted by the liberals is the notion that the Constitution is a “living document.” Beginning in the early twentieth century, liberals contended that the Constitution must be modified or bent to address the modern age and problems never foreseen by the Founders. If, as liberals believe, the Constitution is a living document, then its meaning and intent is pliable which allows it to become an instrument for enlightened social change to meet the needs of the hour.

A second liberal acid that threatens republican principles is decades of significant judicial activism by liberal judges usurping the role of the legislature by making law as opposed to a thoughtful judicial interpretation of the law in light of the plain language of the Constitution. Such judicial law making tosses aside republican principles of creating law by elected representatives in favor of laws made by unelected and unaccountable judges to further the goals of an elite cadre of social engineers who “know best” what’s good for America.

A third acid that undermines republican principles is an abusive and adversarial bureaucracy largely insulated and unaccountable to the legislative bodies. Regulatory oversight is a necessary and proper function of government. However, under the expansive interpretation of the Constitution’s general welfare clause beginning in 1936, much of regulatory oversight has become an autocratic function of a nanny-state bureaucracy intruding into the lives of a free people capable of making rational decisions without government interference.[6]

In summary, republican principles of government as implanted in the Constitution by the Founders have been muted, ignored, or misinterpreted by liberal maneuverings and intrigues. We have become a nation guided by feelings relative only to the moment. Therefore, human nature, through its passions, appetites, and desires of the moment, is released from the prescriptions of history, custom, convention, and tradition. This was not the intent of the Founders. Their true intent mirrored the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson who Sherwood Eddy described as being one who “… stood for a strict interpretation of the conservative Constitution to prevent ever-threatened encroachments upon the rights of the people, the legislature, and the states.”[7] In other words, Jefferson was an “originalist” and would have only contempt for the concept of a “living Constitution.”

Because of the unrelenting assault on the biblical worldview for three generations and a lack of truthful teaching in our schools about America’s founding republican principles, America is seeing a shift by a growing segment of its citizens to a humanistic worldview devoid of belief in a transcendent God, objective truth, and the fallen nature of man. The consequences of such a shift in the America cultural vision were foreseen by our Founding fathers.

The only foundation for…a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.[8] [Benjamin Rush – Signor of the Declaration of Independence, attendee at the Continental Congress, physician and first Surgeon General]

Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.[9] [Charles Carroll – Signor of the Declaration of Independence, lawyer, member of the Continental Congress and first U.S. Senate]

We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.[10] [John Adams – One of the drafters and a signor of the Declaration of Independence, 2nd President of the United States]

In summary, the Constitution won’t save America if its citizens abandon republican principles of government which must be inseparably entwined with virtue, morality, and Christian principles. Such abandonment leaves the Constitution powerless to guide the nation as it enters the turbulent waters of the humanistic moral relativism of Enlightenment egalitarianism. And the ultimate consequence of this abandonment is a loss of liberty.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991), p. 415.
[2] Ibid., p. 416.
[3] David Barton, “Republic v. Democracy,” Wallbuilders.com. January 2001.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=111 (accessed December 13, 2016).
[4] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1996, 1994), p. 18.
[5] Ibid., p. 678.
[6] Larry G. Johnson, “The fragility of free speech in America,” culturewarrior.net, March 21, 2014. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2014/03/21/the-fragility-of-free-speech-in-america/
[7] Sherwood Eddy, The Kingdom of God and the American Dream, (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1941), p. 124
[8] Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical, (Philadelphia: Thomas and Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), 93. Online source: http://fromthisconservativesviewpoint.blogspot.Com /2013/01/the-only-foundation-for-republic.html (accessed May 9, 2013).
[9] “Letter of Charles Carroll to James McHenry,” dated November 4, 1800. Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry, (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907, 475.
Online source: Quoted by Dave Miller, Ph.D., Apologetics Press. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1508 (accessed May 9, 2013).
[10] Federer, America’s God and Country, pp. 10-11.

“…my big fear is, we are Rome.”

Posted by :admin On : November 18, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Government, Worldview

San Antonio Spurs basketball coach Gregg Popovich is angry and frustrated about Donald Trump’s election. He was particularly upset with Trump’s’ rhetoric during the campaign.

I can’t imagine being a Muslim right now or a woman or an African-American, Hispanic, a handicapped person. How disenfranchised they might feel. For anyone in those groups that voted for him, it’s just beyond my comprehension how they ignore all that. Not basically because the Republicans won or anything, but the disgusting tenure and tone and all the comments that have been xenophobic, homophobic, racist, misogynistic. I live in that country where half the people ignored all that to elect someone. That’s the scariest part of the whole thing to me.… Everybody wants him [Trump] to be successful, it’s our country, we don’t want it to go down the drain. Any reasonable person would come to that conclusion, but it does not take away the fact that he used that fearmongering and all the comments from day one. The race-baiting with trying to make Barack Obama our first black president illegitimate. It leaves me wonder where I’ve been living and with whom I’m living…My final conclusion is, my big fear is, we are Rome.[1]

What is the essence of Popovich’s remarks? First, he believes that anyone who voted for Trump was voting for intolerance, bigotry, hatred and distrust of women, and intense hatred and fear of homosexuals. Second, Popovich says that Trump’s opposition to Obama amounted to fearmongering in which he was trying to make the first black president illegitimate.

This fact is that many of the millions that voted for Trump were not necessarily enamored with him or approved of his rhetoric. They voted for Trump because it was a vote against Clinton and her policies which meant it was also a vote against a continuation of the policies of President Obama and the Democratic Party. In spite of all the bitter rhetoric on both sides, the campaign was substantially driven by fundamental differences in the worldviews of those who had to make a choice between the two candidates. This conclusion is easily confirmed by examining the results of thousands of other elections in America. From local and state government elections to the Congressional level, there was a backlash against the Clinton/Obama vision of America which was being driven by an overreaching cabal of governmental, cultural, academic, and media elites that sought to impose a sterile, secular, humanistic worldview on a nation that would not let go of its Judeo-Christian roots.

Popovich and others of the liberal persuasion fail to see that there are two camps, one on each side of the fault line that divides America: those promoting a humanistic secularism and those upholding the Judeo-Christian foundations of the nation. Liberals see themselves as the gatekeepers of what is culturally acceptable and denigrate and marginalize those who dare to disagree, i.e., Christians, conservatives, and those opposed to a growing nanny-state socialism. Liberals believe the culture wars are over and that they won. Because they are now in charge, they will dictate what is truth for the moment and what conduct is unacceptable. However, whether approved by the majority or not, the humanists’ truth is relativistic and has no basis for determining what is right and wrong. Their relativistic answers for what ails both men and culture are based on a false understanding of man and his origins. Their humanistic philosophy is disconnected from reality (truth) and ultimately leads to failure in both individuals and societies.

Even after the election, liberals continue to perpetuate the party line in support of the illusion that Clinton lost the election because Trump’s rhetoric appealed to the baser instincts of less-educated white people who are fundamentally racist, anti-women, and homophobic and which propelled a “white-lash” of votes. This tactic has been used by liberals for many years including Barack Obama. During his 2008 campaign for the presidency, Obama attempted to explain his difficulty in winning working-class voters in Pennsylvania and the Midwest because of their frustrations with economic conditions.

And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.[2]

Hilary Clinton used the race and religion tactic in trashing Trump’s supporters at a mid-September campaign fundraiser.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [applause and laughter from the audience.] The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.[3]

Clinton then said some of these people were “irredeemable” and “not America.”[4]

Approximately 120 twenty million Americans voted in the presidential election. Using Ms. Clinton’s calculations, she believes thirty million Trump voters are deplorables, many of whom she considers irredeemable and not reflective of American values. In spite of a half-hearted apology the following day, she continued her assault.

It’s deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people.[5]

For the liberal gatekeepers of a politically correct culture, they believe they are the only ones allowed to judge the views and voices of the people and determine what is hateful and intolerant. Those that have been judged as having violated the humanistic standards of what is acceptable must not be given a national platform to spread their message to millions of other people because they belong in that basket of deplorables. This is operative mindset of liberals and the reason why the voice and influence of Christianity in America has been denigrated, muted, and marginalized for the last several decades as our elite humanist overlords rose to power in every facet of American life.

The issues that divide America are far more important than the winner of a single presidential election. However, the election was exceedingly important in deciding the trajectory of the nation in addressing those issues. Popovich does not address those issues that divide America other than to say that a vote for Trump was a vote for intolerance, bigotry, hatred and distrust of women, and fear of homosexuals. Because of Popovich’s distorted view, he feels America is a crumbling society reminiscent of the Roman Empire. Let’s examine that empire and determine if its decay was the result of a Christian worldview or false pagan and humanistic worldviews.

Roman Practices

The first widespread persecution of Christians under the Romans began under Emperor Nero in A.D. 64. There were many reasons why the Christians were harassed, hated, despised, imprisoned, tortured or killed during the first three hundred years of the church’s history. One of the principal reasons for the persecutions was the church’s beliefs which stood in opposition to Roman culture. Christian morality condemned Roman practices of abortion, infanticide, abandonment of infants, suicide, homosexual acts, and the degradation of women, all fixtures in the culture of the Roman Empire.[6] Which aspects of the culture of the Roman Empire do the humanists and secularists champion in today’s America? Substantially all of them: homosexuality, abortion (and infanticide in some quarters), suicide, and sexual degradation of women. So we see that it is the beliefs, causes, and practices of America’s modern liberals, progressives, and humanists that are similar to the practices of the failed Roman Empire.

Roman gods and the Roman state

The Romans were not anti-religious and dedicated the Pantheon in Rome to all gods. Also, the Roman rulers did not object to Christians worshiping Jesus and were very willing to give the Christian God a place in their pantheon of gods. But those prickly Christians had to insist that they worshiped only Jesus as God and his Father, the infinite, personal God. These beliefs were considered treasonous because they threatened the unity of the state. To make matters worse, the Christians believed their God established the absolute universal standard by which to judge not only one’s personal morals but the actions of the state as well. Because Christians adhere to higher moral standards of behavior, such behavior casts the humanists in a negative light. As a result, Christians are labeled as judgmental, non-progressive, and intolerant.

In the Roman Empire, any group that presumed to judge the actions of the state or question its authority could not be tolerated and were treated as enemies of the state.[7] By modern liberal standards, those early Christians would be labeled as intolerant, non-inclusive, and even bigoted. A similar judgment has been pronounced on many Christians in today’s America. As a result, humanist elites also see Christians as enemies of the state which has resulted in their loss of jobs; massive fines for practicing their faith in their businesses; denial of work in certain professions; enrollment at many universities; and banishment from certain media, cultural, and entertainment venues.
______

The Roman world disintegrated because it was culturally and spiritually impoverished and no longer had a unifying common core of belief. The Christian virtues that had gained stature in the fourth century and offered a worldview built on the reality of divine truth had not time to infuse life into the dying empire. Likewise, the rise of the secular-humanistic worldview and its ascension to the corridors of power in all of America’s institutions have compromised and supplanted the once vibrant Christian character that permeated the nation’s central cultural vision. As a result there is no longer a unifying common core of belief without which American culture will eventually disintegrate. Popovich is correct in believing America is becoming Rome but not for the reasons he thinks.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Spurs’ Popovich on Trump’s election: ‘That disgusting’,” NewsMax, November 12, 2016.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/gregg-popovich-san-antonio-spurs-nba-donald-trump/2016/11/11/id/758509/ (accessed November 12, 2016).
[2] Gleanings, “Obama: ‘They cling to guns or religion’,” Christianity Today, April 13, 2008.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2008/april/obama-they-cling-to-guns-or-religion.html (accessed November 12, 2016).
[3] Amy Chozick, “Hilary Clinton calls many Trump backers ‘Deplorables,’ and G.O.P pounces,” The New York Times, September 10, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables.html?_r=0 (accessed November 11, 2016).
[4] Dan Merica and Sophie Tatum, “Clinton expresses regret for saying ‘half’ of Trump’s supporters are ‘deplorables’,” CNN Politics, September 12, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald- trump-basket-of-deplorables/ index.html (accessed November 12, 2016).
[5] Chozick, “Hilary Clinton calls many Trump backers ‘Deplorables,’ and G.O.P pounces,” The New York Times.
[6] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001, 2004, pp. 25,
[7] Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 1976), p. 24.

America’s “Gray-suited bureaucrats”- Part II

Posted by :admin On : October 28, 2016
0

Category: America, Archives, Constitution, Government

As described in Part I, most Americans believe they have been stripped of most of their Constitutionally-mandated freedoms and are being controlled by a vast army of gray-suited governmental officials and bureaucrats who are no longer responsive to the will and wishes of the people.

Three principal culprits were identified in the marginalization of the American electorate in the governing process. First, the modern judiciary has crossed the line of its Constitutionally-mandated powers by creating legislation as opposed to interpreting the law. These court-created laws are wrongly assumed to be the law of the land. Second, overreach of the Executive branch has ignored or violated the Constitution through disregard of Constitutional limits on executive powers, selective enforcement and/or bureaucratic changes to laws enacted by Congress, and circumvention of the powers of the legislative branch through issuance of illegitimate executive orders. Third, there has developed an autocratic, rapacious nanny-state bureaucracy whose regulatory oversight intrudes into minutest areas of the lives of a free people capable of making rational decisions without government interference. This massive, heavy-handed, and adversarial bureaucracy has become largely unaccountable to Congress and the American people.

The Road to Serfdom

F. A. Hayek in his seminal work titled The Road to Serfdom written during World War II addresses the question of how democracies that begin with limitations on the power of their elected officials can succumb to the exercise of arbitrary power of the few.

There is no justification for the belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary…it is not the source but the limitation of power which prevents it from being arbitrary…If democracy resolves on a task which necessarily involves the use of power which cannot be guided by fixed rules, it must become arbitrary power.[1] [emphasis added]

The American Founders’ Constitution fixed the rules by which the Republic was to be governed. However, in spite of the intent of the Founders when writing the Constitution, the popular liberal mantra for most of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century is that the Constitution is a “living document” that must be modified or bent to address the modern age and problems never foreseen by the Founders. By living document, the Constitutional liberals believe that its meaning and intent should be an instrument for enlightened social change to meet the needs of the hour. The liberals’ living document has become an arbitrary document in which the few impose their will on the majority. But Thomas Jefferson cautioned against such liberalism regarding the Constitution.

On every question of construction [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.[2]

On June 23, 2016, the British people cast off forty-plus years of rule by the European Union, a super-state conglomeration of twenty eight nations that had surrendered much of their sovereignty to an unelected bureaucracy headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. Ignoring the advice, warnings, and propaganda of politicians, cultural elites, and others with a vested interest in the status quo, the British voters asked themselves one fundamental but simple question, “Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny?” The question the Brits asked is the question Americans must also ask and answer quickly before the loss of freedom is irreversible.

Hillary Clinton has given her answer, and it is on the side of an undemocratic authority to rule American lives. In a May 2013 paid speech allegedly delivered to Banco Itau, a large Brazilian bank, Clinton said:

My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.[3] [emphasis added]

For Americans, the process of repairing nearly two centuries of humanistic erosion of the biblical foundations upon which the nation was built is far more difficult than the single ballot box victory achieved by the British people. The unelected and unresponsive British task masters operated from the outside—from the headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, and its various outposts throughout the EU. America’s wayward overseers are home-grown humanistic oligarchs entrenched in the nation’s governing fabric and headed by the likes of Hilary Clinton.

That America’s governing elite would eventually succumb to lure of power and position to the detriment of the people being governed would be no surprise to the Founders. Daniel Webster recognized the love of power within the hearts of men was a constant threat to liberty.

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions…There are men, in all ages…who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters…They think that there need be but little restraint upon themselves. Their notion of the public interest is apt to be quite closely connected with their own exercise of authority…The love of power may sink too deep in their own hearts even for their own scrutiny…[4] [emphasis added]

How can Americans recover their freedoms when their leaders ignore or pervert the original meaning of the Constitution?

For Americans to recover their freedoms from the reigning government by the few (i.e., oligarchy), they must revisit the Constitution to once again fix the rules by which their representatives are to govern. Fortunately, the Founders held the biblical understanding of the fallen nature of man and wisely made provision in the Constitution to rein in a wayward government led by wayward men and women who have strayed from the meaning of Constitution as intended by the Founders. That provision was made in Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…[5]

The Convention of States Project was founded by Citizens for Self Governance for the purpose of stopping the increasing abuse of power by the federal government. They believe the governing process in Washington, D.C. is broken because of the growing massive debt incurred by the government and the seizing of power from the states.[6] The following is the stated goal of the Convention of States Project:

…to urge and empower state legislators to call a convention of states. The delegates at such a convention would have the power to propose amendments to the Constitution that would curb the abuses of the federal government. Article V of the Constitution gives them this power; the COS Project will give them an avenue through which they can use it.[7]

Rather than proposing a specific amendment, the COS Project is calling for a convention under Article V of the Constitution for a specific subject which is the limitation of the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.[8] [emphasis added] The COS Project has identified four major areas of abuse by the federal government which are the subjects to be addressed by a Convention of States.

• The Spending and Debt Crisis
• The Regulatory Crisis
• Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty
• Federal Takeover of the Decision-Making Process[9]

To call a Convention of States under Article V of the Constitution, the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (34) must pass a resolution called an “application” calling for a Convention of States. The applications must request a Convention of the States for the same subject matter. In the COS Project, the subject matter is the limitation of the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. The applications are delivered to Congress. The business of the convention is to propose amendments to the Constitution related to the specific subjects agreed upon by the states.[10]

Commissioners from each state propose, discuss, and vote on amendments to the Constitution. All amendments at the convention must pass by a simple majority of those states at the convention. The approved amendments will be sent back to the states for ratification. Each state has one vote at the Convention regardless of the number of commissioners sent by that state. A state’s vote is on the amendment to be sent to the states will be determined by a majority of the voting commissioners in a state’s caucus. Three-fourths of the states (38) must ratify any proposed amendments. Once states ratify, the amendments become part of the Constitution.[11]

Generally, Congress designates the state legislatures as the ratifying body. However, Congress may choose to have the states call ratifying conventions whereby an election would be held in each state to allow the electorate to choose delegates to the ratifying conventions.[12]

A Constitutional purist, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was one of the most articulate and clear thinking justices of modern times. Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Reagan and served on the Court until his death in February 2016. In 1979 Scalia was a law professor at the University of Chicago when he participated in panel discussion on Article V conducted by the American Enterprise Institute. His remarks at the panel discussion captured the heart of the importance of and need for a Convention of States.

We have come a long way. We have gotten over many problems. But the fact remains that a widespread and deep feeling of powerlessness in the country is apparent with respect to many issues, not just the budget issue. The people do not feel that their wishes are observed. They are heard but they are not heeded, particularly at the federal level. The Congress has come up with a lot of palliatives—the legislative veto, for example-which do not solve the problem at all. Part of the problem as I have noted is simply that the Congress has become professionalized; its members have a greater interest than ever before in remaining in office; and it is served by a bureaucracy and is much more subject to the power of individualized pressure groups than to the unorganized feelings of the majority of the citizens. This and other factors have created a real feeling of disenfranchisement that I think has a proper basis. The one remedy specifically provided for in the Constitution is the amendment process that bypasses the Congress.[13]

These feelings of powerlessness and disenfranchisement arise because the processes of a huge and complex government have usurped the power of the people to govern themselves. Thomas Jefferson recognized the inability of man to restrain his innate lust for power. His solution was also found in the Constitution. “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”[14] Article V is an integral link in that chain.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Bruce Caldwell, ed., (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1944, 2007), p. 111.
[2] David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), p. 28.
[3] Frank Camp, “WikiLeaks strikes again: Clinton Allegedly Praised ‘Open Borders’ in Paid Speech to Foreign Bank,” The Daily Caller, October 8, 2016. http://www.dailywire.com/news/9802/wikileaks-strikes-again-clinton-allegedly-praised-frank-camp (accessed October 12, 2016).
[4] Daniel Webster, Speech delivered at Niblo’s Saloon in New York, March 15, 1837, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1837), p. 17 from Archives.org. https://archive.org/details/speechdeliveredb01webs (accessed October 25, 2016).
[5] Article V, The Constitution of the United States.
[6] Media/About/News, Convention of States. http://www.conventionofstates.com/about (accessed October 12, 2016).
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Learn – The Problem, Convention of States. http://www.conventionofstates.com/faq (accessed October 12, 2016).
[10] Learn – The Solution, Convention of States. http://www.conventionofstates.com/faq (accessed October 12, 2016).
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Learn – Frequently Asked Questions, Convention of States. http://www.conventionofstates.com/faq (accessed October 12, 2016).
[14] Thomas Jefferson, “Two enemies of the people are criminals and government…” Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc. (US), https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/two-enemies-people-are-criminals-and-governmentquotation (accessed October 25, 2016).
by

America’s “Gray-suited bureaucrats”- Part I

Posted by :admin On : October 21, 2016
0

Category: America, Archives, Constitution, Government

On June 23, 2016, the British People throughout the United Kingdom voted to end forty plus years of membership in the European Union. As one writer put it, many Britons felt forsaken by the country’s political and cultural leadership. Many believed that their lives were controlled by “gray-suited Brussels bureaucrats” at the EU’s headquarters.”[1]

Many Americans and possibly a large majority feel they, too, are being controlled by a vast army of gray-suited governmental officials and bureaucrats who are no longer responsive to the will and wishes of a majority of the people. There are three principal culprits in the marginalization of the American electorate in the governing process.

Judiciary

The problem with the modern judiciary is that it has crossed the line of its Constitutionally-mandated powers by creating legislation as opposed to interpreting the law. In the first eight decades following the writing of the Constitution in 1787, the Supreme Court ruled only twice that a law created by Congress was unconstitutional, and both times the ruling was ignored by Congress and the President.

In Marbury v. Madison, President Jefferson rejected the belief that the Judiciary was the final voice and described the damage to the Constitution of a contrary opinion.

[O]ur Constitution…has given – according to this opinion – to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation…The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.[2] [emphasis added]

Sixty-two years later, Abraham Lincoln and the Congress ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Not only was the ruling ignored but directly disobeyed. On June 9, 1862, Congress prohibited the extension of slavery into free territories and in 1863 Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery throughout the nation.[3] Several of Abraham Lincoln’s remarks in his first Inaugural Address were prompted by the Dred Scott decision.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court…At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having…resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.[4] [emphasis added]

Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court does not make its ruling the “law of the land.” In defending his veto of legislation passed by Congress and deemed Constitutional by the Supreme Court, President Andrew Jackson made a noteworthy description of the duties of the three branches of government with regard to interpreting the Constitution.

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others…The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.[5]

Irrespective of words of Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln, the modern judiciary in the age of the “living” Constitution has made it increasingly pliable in order to accommodate the humanistic worldview and philosophies of society’s elites and overseers in order to impose their socially-engineered laws and regulations which stand in opposition to the popular will and wishes of the people and their mores, norms, traditions, and voices of the past.

Executive Branch

The rule of law implies that governmental authority (power) is limited and may only be exercised in accordance with written laws adopted through an established procedure. When elected or appointed officials and bureaucrats exercise power beyond the limits established by the law, it is called abuse.

The brazen overreach of the Executive Branch under the Obama administration has occurred through the disregard of Constitutional limits on executive powers and may be unparalleled in American history. In addition to scorning the rebukes by the Supreme Court for his un-Constitutional executive actions, the President has violated his Constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws through his selective enforcement and/or changes to laws enacted by Congress. Additionally, the administration has regularly circumvented the powers of the legislative branch through the issuance of illegitimate executive orders to accomplish what Congress would not approve and to frustrate implementation of legislation that Congress has approved.[6]

The two pillars of Barack Obama’s crumbling legacy are Obamacare and the American foreign policy of disengagement marked by diplomacy and multilateralism.[7] But perhaps Barack Obama’s presidency will be most remembered for his above-the-law actions in the Executive Branch and the attendant widespread lawlessness at all levels of the federal government under his administration.

Unelected bureaucracy

Regardless of President Obama’s involvement in or prior knowledge of the various scandals that have been endemic throughout his administration, his arrogant example sent the message that his decrees and agenda were superior to the laws of the land. Although an abusive bureaucracy was not the invention of President Obama, he has dramatically accelerated the level of abuse.

Regulatory oversight is a necessary and proper function of government. However, under the expansive interpretation of the Constitution’s general welfare clause beginning in 1936, much of regulatory oversight has become an autocratic function of a nanny-state bureaucracy intruding into the lives of a free people capable of making rational decisions without government interference.[8] The burden and cost of regulations on average Americans and businesses is staggering. To give insight into the massive size of the federal bureaucracy we look to Title 27 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. This is the U.S. Tax Code which contains 16,845 pages including the part written by Congress. It is available for purchase from the U.S. Government Printing office for $1,153. However, the U.S. Tax Code is just one of 50 titles found in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, each of which contains one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar year, on a staggered basis.[9] To these we add a multitude of state, county, city, and other regulatory entities’ rules and regulations.

In recent years there has been a frightening new adversarial mutation to the once overbearing but benign American governmental bureaucracy. The most recent scandals at the IRS and Departments of State, Justice, and Health and Human Services have exposed the dark underbelly of the rapacious bureaucratic monster. The goal of these agencies and bureaucracies is self-perpetuation which is accomplished by aiding those in power that are most friendly to their continued existence, financial health, and growth. A recent op-ed piece written by John Brock reveals how this symbiotic system works.

Government agencies are extorting billions of dollars from companies they regulate to the extent they are becoming independent of congressional appropriations and congressional oversight. For example, a Tulsa manufacturing firm was recently notified by the Environmental protection agency that a report was late. The company’s government consultant informed the company that previously such an error would have resulted in a $10,000 fine. The fine this time was $300,000. However, if the company would agree not to appeal through courts, the EPA would reduce the fine to $200,000. That is about the legal cost of an appeal. The delinquent report was that “there is nothing to report.” Early on regulators required a report only if there was a rule violation.

Most think that fines and penalties assessed by regulators go into the Treasury. Not so. The agency gets to keep the money, which it uses for bonuses to employees, employee parties, hiring more employees and buying equipment. For example, in the last eight years most agencies, using funds acquired from fines, have created their own police departments in lieu of using federal marshals. There are now more agency police than there are Marines in the U.S. Marine Corp. This extortion happens every day and all over the country and is increasing.[10]

In a 2008 speech, presidential candidate Barack Obama said that, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Where is this civilian national security force? It is housed in over seventy agencies according to a 2012 report and includes such agencies as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which has an enforcement division manned by 191 employees and a budget of $65 million. Also, these agencies are often called on to conduct joint enforcement operations. And to whom do these seventy agencies ultimately report? That’s right, the president.[11]
______

It is time for the states, Congress, and the American people to reign in the excesses of the Judiciary and Executive branch of government that has undermined Constitutional balanced of powers as designed by Madison and the Founders during the Constitutional Convention. Can there be a Brexit for America to shut down these gray-suited bureaucrats who are threatening the freedom of ordinary Americans? No, but there is a Constitutional solution. More on that in Part II.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Amanda Taub, “Brexit, explained: 7 Questions About What It Means and Why It Matters,” The New York Times, June 23, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/world/europe/brexit-britain-eu-explained.html?_r=0 (accessed October 5, 2016).
[2] David Barton, Original Intent, (Alledo, Texas: Wallbuider Press, 2008), p. 271. Quoting: Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 213, to Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819.
[3] Ibid. p. 272.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Larry G. Johnson, “The end of sustainable government,” CultureWarrior.net, August 15, 2014. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2014/08/15/the-end-of-sustainable-government/
[7] Charles Krauthammer, “The Stillborn Legacy of Barak Obama,” The Patriot Post, October 7, 2016. https://patriotpost.us/opinion/45242 (accessed October 10, 2016).
[8] Larry G. Johnson, “The fragility of free speech in America,” CultureWarrior.net, March 21,2014. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2014/03/21/the-fragility-of-free-speech-in-america/
[9] “What is the Real Size of the U.S. Federal Tax Code,” Isaac Brock Society, February 12, 2012. http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/02/12/what-is-the-real-size-of-the-u-s-federal-tax-code/ (accessed April 9, 2014).
[10] John Brock, “Citizens deliver a vote of no confidence,” Tulsa World, July 15, 2016, A-9.
[11] “Beware the increasing militarization of government,” Investor’s Business Daily, April 16, 2014. http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/many-federal-agencies-have-armed-divisions/ (accessed October 10, 2016).