Super Congress: Echoes of Tyranny Rising

And now for something completely the same… In the “those who won’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it” department, I give you a quote from the National Center for Constitutional Studies:

"America’s Founders had just declared themselves free of a tyrannical government. They were determined that such tyranny would never be repeated in this land. Their new charter of government – the Constitution – carefully defined the powers delegated to government. The Founders were determined to bind down the administrators of the federal government with Constitutional chains so that abuse of power in any of its branches would be prevented. The revolutionary idea of separation of powers, although unpopular at first, became a means by which this was to be accomplished.

John Adams, in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, stated: “I call you to witness that I was the first member of Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my ‘Thoughts on Government,’ …in favor of a government with three branches, and an independent judiciary…” By the time the Constitution was adopted, the idea was supported by all of the members of the Convention. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, devoted five Federalist Papers (47-51) to an explanation of how the Executive, Legislative, and judicial branches were to be wholly independent of each other, yet bound together through an intricate system of checks and balances. Madison believed that keeping the three branches separated was fundamental to the preservation of liberty. He wrote:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, reminded Americans of the need to preserve the Founders’ system. He spoke of the “love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart” and warned of the “necessity of reciprocal checks of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the guardian … against invasions by the others.” Of such checks and balances through the separation of powers be concluded, “To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.”

"History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies."

Americans labor under a failed government and a failed economy. High unemployment, soaring debt, want, need, desperation. Deja Vu comes knocking as our politicians are locked in a battle over our debt ceiling – a battle choreographed and planned for our benefit to accomplish some nefarious end, no doubt. It is the dance of history replaying itself in the fight between freedom and tyranny.

America is bankrupt and Democrats don’t want to cut spending at all. They want to keep spending in a Cloward and Piven frenzy guaranteed to destroy America once and for all. They insist on more revenue, i.e. taxes. Taxes on a suffering American public who can shoulder the burden of taxation no longer; who cannot even feed and clothe their families adequately or scrounge together the needed funds for gas to get to and from work. Does any one else feel like we are being played by both sides? These budget deals are not surpassingly awesome.

The Republicans claim they want to Cut, Cap and Balance the budget. And while I’ll concede there are a number of brave souls who wish to do that, primarily the Tea Party candidates in the House of Representatives, the remainder for the most part in the Senate are far too weak kneed to accomplish the vital objective of a Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget. They now claim to have a two-step plan to come to a bi-partisan agreement with the Progressives on the Left and handle the debt ceiling. But notice, this plan is not on CSPAN. You won’t see it on Fox News. It’s not out in the open. Just vague innuendos from Boehner that we aren’t there yet and that there is a two-step plan based on Cut, Cap and Balance involving a ‘committee.’ It is being cobbled together behind closed doors and in the dark of night.

I would remind people of the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany. It is eerily similar to what is happening now. In short, with the Enabling Act, the parliament granted the German government additional powers and de facto legalized Hitler’s dictatorship.

We are in a similar position. The “Super Congress,” however, is taking the power out of the people’s hands (as delegated to their “representatives”) and placing it into the hands of a few before giving it to an authoritarian.

And there are more and more of the whispers speaking of a Super Congress. Starting Saturday evening, a story came forth from the New York Times that a Super Congress was being touted as a solution to the debt ceiling empasse. Hardly the most reliable source, nevertheless it is being repeated in the Huffington Post and has now been picked up byNewsMax. I pray this is wrong, because it is so unconstitutional as to bring fear into this American’s heart of another revolution and to reverberate the echoes of tyranny rising throughout America.

I ask our politicians, where is the transparency? Since when do Americans get locked out of seeing your ‘plans?’ Plans that will effect each and every one of us in life changing ways. Why don’t you show us what you are proposing? Sunlight is the best disinfectant – bring these talks and plans into the open for all to see.

A Super Congress is not the answer. It is a Progressive/Marxist solution to a problem of their own making and will allow an elite cabal to rule over America with a dictator at the helm. Is this what we have come to? From the Huffington Post:

"This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process."

The article goes on to claim that John Boehner is making the Super Congress a defining point in his new proposal to raise the debt ceiling. If true, shame on him and shame on McConnell. We’ve come to expect fascist maneuvering from the Progressives on the Left, but now it would seem the Progressives on the Right are rearing their unconstitutional heads.

The Tea Party and American patriots want and demand that our leaders cut spending and not raise taxes. Do not raise the debt ceiling any more. We don’t want a Super Congress and we don’t want to be a party to your gleeful destruction of the Constitution. Stop floating these Marxist ideas or Americans will surely see you are removed from office for good. Americans will not become subservient to an elite ruling class. We will fight you, you can be sure of that.

There is a good reason that Boehner has not pressed this plan publicly. He would be ripped to shreds by Conservatives over it and he knows it. If this story is true, we are indeed in real trouble folks. Why is this story not everywhere you look? And how much power and money was promised to those that would betray the Tea Party and Americans in general? Inquiring minds really need to know.

Whether this piece of insanity comes to fruition is yet to be seen. I don’t think it will come to pass because it would mean a revolt of the people. However, I still believe there is a very strong chance that Obama will use his Executive Order power using the 14th Amendment as cover to raise the debt ceiling. Looks like this week will be one wild ride…

If this effort to create a Super Congress to distill power into the hands of the few, the elite, the select succeeds, we will indeed have tyranny rising.

LOL. Ridiculous. First, they hadn't "just" freed themselves from British rule. The war was over in 1783. The colonies continued under their existing government until 1789, when the Constitution having been ratified, was put into action.

Second, their charter did anything BUT "carefully define" powers. "Necessary and proper" clause? "general welfare" clause?

Third, separation of powers was NOT a novel idea. The states had republican governments, with an executive and a legislative branch. They had a judiciary. The only thing novel was the pretense that federalism was something other than nationalism--that the states would be anything more than mere counties under the new system.

The purpose of the Constitution was to enlarge the central government, to make it a complete, consolidated government, and to make sure it had dominion over the states.

But hey, if you like fairy tales, then just ignore me.

No way that could be Constitutional

Constitution - Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

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.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Chapter 1

Our Enemy, The State
by Albert J. Nock - 1935

[It must be remembered that Mr. Nock was writing this shortly after the Coup d'état of Roosevelt and the New Deal Democrats - What he saw happening HAS HAPPENED! - We are very much closer as we enter the 21st Century to a Dictatorial Socialist State.]

In chapter 5 Nock goes on to write, 'The revolution of 1776-1781 converted thirteen provinces, practically as they stood, into thirteen autonomous political units, completely independent, and they so continued until 1789, formally held together as a sort of league, by the Articles of Confederation. For our purposes, the point to be remarked about this eight-year period, 1781- 1789, is that administration of the political means was not centralized in the federation, but in the several units of which the federation was composed. The federal assembly, or congress, was hardly more than a deliberative body of delegates appointed by the autonomous units. It had no taxing-power, and no coercive power. It could not command funds for any enterprise common to the federation, even for war; all it could do was to apportion the sum needed, in the hope that each unit would meet its quota. There was no coercive federal authority over these matters, or over any matters; the sovereignty of each of the thirteen federated units was complete.'

His conclusion:

'But there is no need to dwell lugubriously upon the probable circumstances of a future so far distant. What we and our more nearly immediate descendants shall see is a steady progress in collectivism running off into a military despotism of a severe type. Closer centralization; a steadily growing bureaucracy; State power and faith in State power increasing, social power and faith in social power diminishing; the State absorbing a continually larger proportion of the national income; production languishing, the State in consequence taking over one "essential industry"after another, managing them with ever-increasing corruption, inefficiency and prodigality, and finally resorting to a system of forced labour. Then at some point in this progress, a collision of State interests, at least as general and as violent as that which occurred in 1914, will result in an industrial and financial dislocation too severe for the asthenic social structure to bear; and from this the State will be left to "the rusty death of machinery,"and the casual anonymous forces of dissolution will be supreme.'

'The revolution of 1776-1781 converted thirteen provinces, practically as they stood, into thirteen autonomous political units, completely independent, and they so continued until 1789, formally held together as a sort of league, by the Articles of Confederation.

John Quincy Adams, who had a much more intimate understanding of the facts than this writer, viewed things very differently.

The Jubilee of the Constitution

April 30, 1839

John Quincy Adams

*excerpt*

"The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are part of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same consistent theory of government, then new, not as a theory, for it had been working itself into the mind of man for many ages, and been especially expounded in the writings of Locke, but had never before been adopted by a great nation in practice.

There are yet, even at this day, many speculative objections to this theory. Even in our own country, there are still philosophers who deny the principles asserted in the Declaration, as self-evident truths - who deny the natural equality and inalienable rights of man - who deny that the people are the only legitimate source of power - who deny that all just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Neither your time, nor perhaps the cheerful nature of this occasion, permit me here to enter upon the anti-revolutionary theory, which arrays state sovereignty against the constituent sovereignty of the people, and distorts the Constitution of the United states into a league of friendship between confederate corporations. I speak to matters of fact. There is the Declaration of Independence, and there is the Constitution of the United States - let them speak for themselves. The grossly immoral and dishonest doctrine of despotic state sovereignty, the exclusive judge of its own obligations, and responsible to no power on earth or in heaven for the violation of them, is not there. The Declaration says, 'it is not in me.' The Constitution says, 'it is not in me.'"

http://books.google.com/books?id=HLVEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA311#v=onepage&q&f=false

The entire piece goes much deeper into these questions than this small excerpt. Well worth the read.

The full discourse by John Quincy Adams:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NUQsAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

He spoke for about two hours.

______________________________

__________

Excerpt:

By the adoption and organization of the Constitution of the United States, these principles had been settled:—

1. That the affairs of the people of the United States were thenceforth to be administered, not by a confederacy, or mere league of friendship between the sovereign states, but by a government, distributed into the three great departments—legislative, judicial, and executive.

2. That the powers of government should be limited to concerns interesting to the whole people, leaving the internal administration of each state, in peace, to its own constitution and laws, provided that they should be republican, and interfering with them as little as should be necessary in war.

3. That the legislative power of this government should be divided between two assemblies, one representing directly the people of the separate states; and the other their legislatures.

4. That the executive power of this government should be vested in one person chosen for four years, with certain qualifications of age and nativity, re-eligible without limitation, and invested with a qualified negative upon the enactment of the laws.

5. That the judicial power should consist of tribunals inferior and supreme, to be instituted and organized by Congress, but to be composed of persons holding their offices during good behaviour, that is, removable only by impeachment.

The organization and constitution of the subordinate executive departments, were also left to the discretionary power of Congress.

But the exact limits of legislative, judicial, and executive power, have never been defined, and the distinction between them is so little understood without reference to certain theories of government, or to specific institutions, that a very intelligent, well-informed and learned foreigner, with whom I once conversed, upon my using the words executive power, said to me, "I suppose by the executive power, you mean the power that MAKES the laws." . . . . Nor is this mistake altogether unexampled, even among ourselves; examples might be adduced in our history, national and confederate, in which the incumbents both of judicial and executive offices have mistaken themselves for the power that makes the laws—as on the other hand examples yet more frequent might be cited of legislators, and even legislatures, who have mistake themselves to be judges, or executives supreme.

The legislative, judicial, and executive powers, like the prismatic colours of the rainbow, are entirely separate and distinct; but they melt so imperceptibly into each other that no human eye can discern the exact boundary line between them. The broad features of distinction between them are perceptible to all; but perhaps neither of them can be practically exercised without occasional encroachment upon the borders of its neighbour. The Constitution of the United States has not pretended to confine either of the great departments of its government exclusively within its own limits. Both the senate and the house of representatives possess, and occasionally exercise, both judicial and executive powers, and the president has at all times a qualified negative upon legislation, and a judicial power of remission. To complete the organization of the government by the institution of the chief executive departments and the establishment of judicial courts, was among the first duties of Congress. The constitution had provided that all the public functionaries of the Union, not only of the general but of all the state governments, should be under oath or affirmation for its support. The homage of religious faith was thus superadded to all the obligations of temporal law, to give it strength; and this confirmation of an appeal to the responsibilities of a future omnipotent judge, was in exact conformity with the whole tenor of the Declaration of Independence — guarded against abusive extension by a further provision, that no religious test should ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. The first act of the Congress, therefore, was to regulate and administer the oaths thus required by the Constitution. ________________________________________

A toast proposed at the event:

"1. George Washington--His example was perfect: severe will be the condemnation of him, who seeks his place and disregards the authority of that example."

(Page 124)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.