We Cannot Say Ben Franklin Did Not Warn Us(Happy Birthday Ben)

Yahoo News ^ | 01/17/2006 | Martin Garabus

[ForGod'sSake]

The confirmation of Samuel Alito will contribute towards a total reorganization of this form of government. The Rehnquist era started the shift of the power to the states and away from the federal government - away from the Congress, away from the federal agencies, away from the regulatory system created to protect employees, consumers, investors - the people of America

The Roberts-Scalia-Alito-Thomas-Kennedy Court will not only continue the work of the Rehnquist Court and make the rightward turn more dramatic - it will also preside over the expansion of presidential powers in ways never before imagined. But even more importantly, it will insulate the President from accountability - the Chief Executive, under the new regime, will be responsible to no one. Most radically, his interpretation of a law passed by Congress he signs will become more significant than Congress's own intent. It is the legally binding one.

Our Founding Fathers created a republican form of government - a state in which the supreme power rests in the people through their elected representative - a self-government based on a structure of checks and balances.

The story goes that, as Benjamin Franklin (whose 300th birthday we celebrate today), left the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he was approached by a Mrs. Powell, who asked him, "What have you given us, Dr. Franklin?"

"A republic," he replied, "if you can keep it.

Well, we can't seem to keep it. At least not for the long foreseeable future - for decades. The three branches of government are totally out of joint. The Congress's role is to pass laws, it is their intent (not the President's) that is to be used in interpreting the laws. Under the Constitution, the President has absolutely no power to say what the intent of a law is.

But because he issues a statement at the time he signs the law Bush claims his interpretation of the law has effect. Alito claims, as do conservative academics, that the "signing statement" would "increase the power of the executive to shape the law."

The Supreme Court was supposed to be a check and balance on the Executive. Chief Justice John Roberts's Court will no longer be that. It will give Bush a blank check; not only in foreign matters but in domestic issues as well. 9/11 was a tragic godsend for those who wanted to restructure the government. Often in war times, presidents are given greater powers - and then years later, in peacetime, those powers are diluted. It's a cycle we have repeatedly seen during our history. But, now with a permanent war, the presidency will get a free, unfettered hand from the Court.

The Congress will not be able to stop the President for the Courts will rule they do not have that power. The Courts, in taking away the ability of Congress, takes away power from its 535 elected representatives in the Senate and House. It eviscerates the right and the ability to self govern.

We no longer have three equal branches of government.

Ken Starr, in his book "First Among Equals," argued, as the title makes clear, that the Supreme Court, since it can define the structure of the government, of the democracy, has more power than the other branches. It is deserved, he says, because they, unlike the elected officials, are better able to interpret the Constitution, better educated, and, from a higher level of our culture. Starr claims, they give us the Platonic form of government we wanted where our betters lead the way.

Nonsense. History shows us the effects of that are disastrous. The self-anointed Best and Brightest are not what we want, not what this democracy wants.

The Conservatives have spent the last three decades refocusing the path of legal opinions. All that Edwin Meese, Robert Bork and John Roberts wanted when they formed the Federalists has come to pass.

Martin Luther King's life reminds us how long a struggle for a democracy rights can take.

King's death signified the end of a liberal era. We must now struggle to try to move forward to end this conservative cycle.

His death reminds us we once lived in an era of giants. Where are the giants now?

We start now to fulfill his vision.

[starbase]

the Chief Executive, under the new regime, will be responsible to no one.

This is absolutely false. This article sounds like a liberal panic attack. To imply that the "right leaning" court will just do any Conservative president's bidding is childishly simple.

It's also false to call the next administration a "regime". BOTH Houses of Congress act as restraints on the president, to say they cannot be Houses of Congress and still be Conservatives pretty much sums up the shrill position of this article.

This article is a scare tactic. If you accept it at face value, we cannot have Conservative judges, presidents, and Houses of Congress because that is the definition of "no responsibility".

This article is written to try to argue that we must give left wing radicals power because if we get the government we want, they would have us believe, then we've lost everything.

As long as there is no coup, and elections are held as scheduled, then the country is working properly (in the context of representation). Everyone must wait for the next elections if they want to try and create changes ("everyone" includes liberals BTW). That's why, although our country is young, our government is among the very oldest in the world.

We cannot allow the left to convince us that our success is failure (IE, when we're in power something is wrong with that). Wouldn't they love it if they could do that?

[Richard Kimball]

Well this was different than what I thought it would be. I thought it would be about Franklin's statement that the Republic would only survive until people figured out they could vote themselves benefits from the public til.

Unfortunately, it's just another fruit loop complaining that the courts might not legislate from the bench.

[ForGod'sSake]

Right, Paul Begal; bent willie's chief of staff: "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool". 'We don't need no steenkin' courts'!

[ForGod'sSake]

Good points.

[ForGod'sSake]

Also the predecessor to the NBA daddy.

If you look around, you'll find some contradictory arguments, FWIW.

[ForGod'sSake]

This article is a scare tactic.

Well, if it were actually scary ;^)

I look at most of the drivel that comes from the left wingnuts as "If the glove don't fit you must acquit" kind of stuff. Nothing more than mindless prattle for the simpletons to use in justifying their unjustifiable positions.

[ForGod'sSake]

A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.(Written by Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago while our thirteen original states were still colonies of Great Britain. At the time he was writing of the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.

[ForGod'sSake]

Begal??? heh. Begala

[Richard Kimball]

He was right, too.

[ForGod'sSake]

He was right, too.

Yes he was; still is. Somehow reminds me of one from Will Rogers: "There are three kinds of men: the one that learns by reading, the few that learn by observation, and the rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."

Some never learn?

[dr_lew]

His death reminds us we once lived in an era of giants. Where are the giants now?

Well, Andrew Jackson is dead too. He told the Supreme Court to buzz off. There's a giant for ya.

[billbears]

The Rehnquist era started the shift of the power to the states and away from the federal government - away from the Congress, away from the federal agencies, away from the regulatory system created to protect employees, consumers, investors - the people of America

The Roberts-Scalia-Alito-Thomas-Kennedy Court will not only continue the work of the Rehnquist Court and make the rightward turn more dramatic - it will also preside over the expansion of presidential powers in ways never before imagined.

Excuse me? How can the ideals of the Rehnquist era of returning to federalism be continued if the Court will further expand the powers of the Executive Branch? Unfortunately, after reading the Scalia opinion today, this guy probably has it backwards. With the recent nominations this may end up being the most federally minded (national supremacy) court in recent history. Thomas, even though he agreed with Scalia and Roberts in a separate decision, may be the only conservative on the bench that still understands the ideals of federalism and the correct position of states' rights.

[mad_as_he$$]

Thanks don't need any more research!

[ForGod'sSake]

Excuse me?

Give the guy a break. He's a Dim shill; he doesn't have to make sense.

...after reading the Scalia opinion today...

How 'bout a synopsis???

Just curious, but didja ever wonder why the states were so eager to cede their sovereignty to the feral gummint? I recall wondering to myself some 20 - 25 years ago, "what gives here?" Power to a politician, even state politicos, is like well, rye whiskey to a drunk. My thoughts then, but less so now, the feral gummint was better able to skim off tax dollars than the states. Who would then "redistribute" the bacon drippings amongst the several states to level the playing field. It would be more fair you see. I suppose the well off states were probably brow beaten into sharing the wealth???

[starbase]

This article is a scare tactic.

[ Well, if it were actually scary ;^) ]

Sometimes I'm afraid there are people dense enough to buy everything written here (though not on FR for the most part).

Is that an ungrounded fear on my part from the recent past when everything the OM (Old Media) wrote went unanswered, or are there people who still swallow this kind of tripe whole?

[starbase]

didja ever wonder why the states were so eager to cede their sovereignty to the feral gummint?

To take a stab at this question of yours, I'd guess it had more to do with the desperate desire to survive combined with the recent experience of how ineffectual the Articles of Confederation were.

Think of their position, just fought a hard war with a major world power, relatively small country, surrounded by (understandably) hostile Indians, weak economy, weaker military. We haven't always had the luxury of our opponent's militaries being rounding errors in relation to ours.

I'll bet they were damn keen on getting something stable running 'yesterday'. And having just tried a Confederacy, they probably thought *total* states rights weren't all they were cracked up to be.

If those assumptions are correct, then I would say they made the right choice at the time.

[ForGod'sSake]

Is that an ungrounded fear on my part from the recent past when everything the OM (Old Media) wrote went unanswered, or are there people who still swallow this kind of tripe whole?

Not as far as I'm concerned, and yes there are. I'm afraid my earlier comment came off a little flippant and it wasn't meant to be. Your point on this was well taken and the rest of your reply was spot on as well; excellent in fact.

[ForGod'sSake]

Good points also. I'm afraid I did a time jump on you without any warning. What I was referring to was the more recent past; more precisely the last 30 years or so. With my own eyes I've seen the states one by one relinquish their sovereign rights to the feral gummint. There are probably a combination of reasons for this happening.....again. In fact, it would appear from almost the beginning the states began to lose their constitutionally guaranteed powers to the fed. Some times they were given, other times taken. And only one major power struggle within our history---the civil war.

In any case, it just seems we and the states have given up their(and our) rights with little, if any, struggle and hardly a whimper.

FGS

[HopefulPatriot]

"I think Orwell had a word for this: Doublethink "

More like half-wit coupled with double talk if you ask me.

[HopefulPatriot]

The old adages that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, those who don't learn from their mistakes, or those who choose to ignore the lessons of history because "it's different this time" are drawn to government and majorities like magnets because they can't thrive in a competitive bottom up world. Thomas Sowell wrote an editorial "Cream rises to the top, except in government where mediocrity rises to the top." The brilliance of a Constitution that limits and divides power within the government is amazing. It should be a duty for those of us who still understand, to restore it.