On limited government
Gary Loftis
July 10, 2009
It is reported that, upon exiting the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government the convention had settled on. His response was "A republic … if you can keep it!" Today, we are at great risk of losing it!
Although we often refer to America as a democracy, it is not; there are very real and fundamental differences between a democracy and a republic. In a democracy, structural and legal societal rules are defined ad hoc by a vote of the majority. In a republic, on the other hand, those rules are codified in a body of law (i.e., the Constitution). In a democracy, it´s winner take all -- the victor gets to do as he pleases. In our republic, the winner gets to assume narrowly-defined duties within a strictly delineated, three branch structure spelled out in the Constitution, which is designed to ensure accountability to the voters. It is on this point that the fragility of our republic rests.
The founders of our nation knew the consequences of government without accountability to the governed, so they carefully and clearly spelled out the limitations applying to federal and state governments, placing the greatest freedom in the hands of individual citizens. The responsibilities of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are written in plain English; one does not need a legal education to understand them. Likewise, the check/balance that ensures no branch can supersede the others is built into their relationships. For instance, the executive branch can appoint cabinet members, but the Senate must approve them before they can assume office. Also, all appropriations (Spending) must originate in the House of Representatives, even though the president actually directs spending. Since the House most closely represents voters, the theory was that the increased accountability would discourage frivolous spending.
Today, the executive branch has rendered the check/balance system --in fact, the entire Constitution -- irrelevant. Massive spending bills with no specifics relating to how and when the money is to be spent are sent from the White House to Congress, voted on without even being read, and sent back for signature. Only after they are passed do the voters find out how the new laws affect them. If there is accountability in today´s system, it is certainly not to the voters.
As the executive/legislative cabal proceeds to gather up private industries like a snowball gathering momentum, the President has chosen to appoint "czars" to manage such things as compensation, auto production, and internet security. Unlike cabinet secretaries, there is no Senate input, nor is there direct Congressional oversight of czars´ activities; they are accountable only to the President. Like the fawning petty nobles of 18th Century Europe, they go about their duties without regard for their impact on the lives of American voters. Their expertise in he field they oversee, assuming they have any -- the No.2 to the "car czar" is a law student with no automobile manufacturing experience -- is apparently less important than their political allegiance.
How long can our republic survive such an overt assault on the core legal basis for 233 years of American liberty? Unless American citizens refuse to bow to politicians who promise impossible benefits in return for forfeited liberty, the outlook is bleak.
Copyright 2009, Gary Loftis. All Rights Reserved.
Although we often refer to America as a democracy, it is not; there are very real and fundamental differences between a democracy and a republic. In a democracy, structural and legal societal rules are defined ad hoc by a vote of the majority. In a republic, on the other hand, those rules are codified in a body of law (i.e., the Constitution). In a democracy, it´s winner take all -- the victor gets to do as he pleases. In our republic, the winner gets to assume narrowly-defined duties within a strictly delineated, three branch structure spelled out in the Constitution, which is designed to ensure accountability to the voters. It is on this point that the fragility of our republic rests.
The founders of our nation knew the consequences of government without accountability to the governed, so they carefully and clearly spelled out the limitations applying to federal and state governments, placing the greatest freedom in the hands of individual citizens. The responsibilities of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are written in plain English; one does not need a legal education to understand them. Likewise, the check/balance that ensures no branch can supersede the others is built into their relationships. For instance, the executive branch can appoint cabinet members, but the Senate must approve them before they can assume office. Also, all appropriations (Spending) must originate in the House of Representatives, even though the president actually directs spending. Since the House most closely represents voters, the theory was that the increased accountability would discourage frivolous spending.
Today, the executive branch has rendered the check/balance system --in fact, the entire Constitution -- irrelevant. Massive spending bills with no specifics relating to how and when the money is to be spent are sent from the White House to Congress, voted on without even being read, and sent back for signature. Only after they are passed do the voters find out how the new laws affect them. If there is accountability in today´s system, it is certainly not to the voters.
As the executive/legislative cabal proceeds to gather up private industries like a snowball gathering momentum, the President has chosen to appoint "czars" to manage such things as compensation, auto production, and internet security. Unlike cabinet secretaries, there is no Senate input, nor is there direct Congressional oversight of czars´ activities; they are accountable only to the President. Like the fawning petty nobles of 18th Century Europe, they go about their duties without regard for their impact on the lives of American voters. Their expertise in he field they oversee, assuming they have any -- the No.2 to the "car czar" is a law student with no automobile manufacturing experience -- is apparently less important than their political allegiance.
How long can our republic survive such an overt assault on the core legal basis for 233 years of American liberty? Unless American citizens refuse to bow to politicians who promise impossible benefits in return for forfeited liberty, the outlook is bleak.
Copyright 2009, Gary Loftis. All Rights Reserved.
Print
Email
