Undivided Power Begets Undivided Tyranny. Always.

[Jacquerie]

The solution to America’s political problems reside within the American tradition. The answer is right in front of our noses.

First, if one thinks, as the dimwitted commentariat does, that the problem is bickering between the two parties, the answer is simple. Eliminate political opposition. Destroy one of the belligerents, and the party left standing will rule without discord. That is Obama’s operandi, and he is well on his way to establishing de facto one party rule.

OTOH, patriotic Americans see the problem as an undivided government in Washington DC rapidly eroding freedom. Our Fabulous Framers knew that who one elects is irrelevant to the larger problem of keeping all power out of the hands of a single government. Recall James Madison’s definition of tyranny as the holding of all powers, legislative, executive and judicial in the same hands, whether by one person, a few, or many and regardless of whether the hands were appointed or elected. This separation of powers theory is the bedrock, the foundation of secured rights. When power is divided, tyranny is impossible. Duh.

Undivided power inevitably leads to undivided tyranny. Isn’t that what we have? The three branches have, for all practical purposes, folded into one self-supporting mass. A president, a few hundred legislators, and nine judges are quite comfortable pushing us around and imposing, with little fear of retribution, their social justice theories on over three hundred million people.

But, according to so many at FreeRepublic, if we just elect virtuous politicians, all will be well. Despite our hundred year experience with popular elections to both the House and Senate, these well-meaning, concerned freepers imagine a Utopian, Platonic paradise where elected, wise philosophers administer a benevolent government that limits itself to enumerated powers, and resists popular demands for more goodies. Equating elections with freedom is a big hurdle for many freepers to overcome. These otherwise intelligent folks should refer to Einstein’s definition of insanity.

So, where is the answer? It is within our proven American tradition. Divide power once again between the national government and states. Restore the all-important vertical separation of powers through a return to federalism. Renew our republic; repeal the 17th Amendment.

[Usagi_yo]

Answering the question presupposes that I can do better. The fact that your asking it means they could have done better.

I can’t do better and they made the best deal they could at the time and given the climate of today, I would have liked to have seen better. Our government and our system is a lot different then what it was at incept so my answer is in regards to what we have today, not what we had.

Perhaps stronger roles for the Speaker of the House and to the Supreme Court Justice. Congress should have some enforcement powers over its enumerate powers and oversight roles that only apply to elected officials and political appointees.

Collective bargaining didn’t exist or wasn’t mature at the time, but it seems that something of the sort should have been thought of and that government employees both federal and state should be forbidden to Unionize and collectively bargain.

[Irenic]

"Undivided power inevitably leads to undivided tyranny. Isn’t that what we have? The three branches have, for all practical purposes, folded into one self-supporting mass."

Indeed!

I also agree that repealing the 17th Amendment is of the utmost importance. The states have been neutered by this farce. The people are represented by the house, the states should be represented by the senate as intended. We tinkered and fubar-ed the intent of our framing. It's like the nun who tried to touch up that old fresco.

I also would love to see an increase in the number of our representatives, it would throw a monkey wrench into all their grand altruistic dream laws and crony BS. We certainly aren't properly represented by the current number.

I am not pushing Mark Levin's book but I am certain that he has written a guide, the instructions, of how we can start to dig ourselves out of this mess. He is the only political talk person that I listen to with any regularity any longer. He offers solid solutions, a plan-- I trust him.

[Nuc 1.1]

Yes that is some of what must be done. But there needs to be much more. The federal governments ability to enslave us must be broken. Repeal of the 17th would be a great first step.

[publius911]

Bookmark

[dfwgator]

Which means not necessarily the most conservative candidate in a primary, but some one who can get elected in general.

Well recently the GOP-e has been a very poor judge of just who can get elected.

[Jacquerie]

Agree on more reps. We've had 435 for over a hundred years. Back then, our population was less than a third of what it is today. Today each rep has over 720,000 constituents, way too many. I'd like to see a doubling of reps. 870 is still manageable.

I hope Mark has adequate security. As Breitbart’s widow knows, the Left plays for keeps.

[Jacquerie]

Certainly more must be done. I like Levin’s additional amendments because they would make the government even more federal than the Framers’ plan.

Of special importance is cutting the nuts off the supreme court.

[Nuc 1.1]

So correct. Article III must be amended to eliminate judicial review. For those not familiar with the term it means federal courts reviewing laws for constitutionality. Using federal courts, the left has imposed its tyranny upon us and shielded its sedition and treason from lawful consequences, under the auspices of Judicial Review. More correctly Article III does not authorize judicial review so it must be amended to prohibit the practice. Adding state nullification into the mix would restore federalism to the judicial branch.

[shove_it]

Very well said, Jacquerie, as usual.

BUMP!

[shove_it]

Great graphics to illustrate the point!

[Q-ManRN]

Repealing the 17th Amendment is an excellent start. We are already in a one party system. Establishment republicans (which are most republicans) and democrats have a common goal: to keep our money and through that money their power centralized in Washington, D.C. There is no serious effort in Washington D.C. to repeal or change any of the Marxist amendments or changes made in the 20th Century.

It is Washington D.C. vs. the rest of the nation, not republican vs. democrat. The recent stand by Senators Cruz and Lee to seriously deal with federal government overspending proves that point. The republican party along with the democrats attacked Cruz and Lee for trying to force them to justify that federal overspending particularly in light of the cost of obamacare. And the result of this courageous stand: the debt ceiling got raised with no budget still, no changes to obamacare, all federal workers back to work, and business continues as usual in D.C. and it will continue that way in a few months too.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'd like to see a doubling of reps. 870 is still manageable.

I've been saying this for a long time, too.

In fact, I'd go further. If we want to create a new "shovel-ready" jobs program, let's convert Washington DC to a museum heritage city and relocate the capital to a new location, say Kansas City, and build it out to handle modern government needs.

Article I Section 8:

---

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

---

Cede the District of Columbia back to Maryland (Congress returned the Virginia portion in 1846) and create a new Government District where we can break the faux "majesty" and sense of nobility that has arisen within our political class from living amongst all the marble splendor.

Build a new capital city that can handle a House of Representatives larger than 430 representatives. Build a proper infrastructure where there are enough offices for staff and other government departments, security, housing, transportation, etc.

Then, when it's done, we can annex Mexico and have enough room for another 20 or 30 states in the seat of government.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

What do you think about the other part of Article III, "and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

What can Congress do today, without amendment, to change the shape and role of the lower courts in a way that affects the jurisdiction and control of the Supreme Court?

I don't think that this is a Congressional muscle that Congress has flexed very much.

-PJ

[Jacquerie]

Well said. It is them v. us. Cruz speaks the language of our founding generation, and the sad fact is that people like him and us are derided as radicals. I wouldn't be surprised if Cruz delivers a floor speech in which he calls for a return to federalism, a senate of the states. Liberal heads would explode and the nation would be somewhat forced to debate and hopefully realize what a horrible mistake the 17th Amendment was.

[Jacquerie]

Nuc 1.1 would take things a bit further than I, but the larger point is an out of control court system.

I agree with you that congress has not used its Article III powers to check Scotus. Congressional power over pay, the makeup of lower courts and cognizance over jurisdiction are significant tools to check Scotus. Like the impeachment power, they just aren't used because controversy may threaten the reelection of reps/senators.

The reason is . . . back to the 17th Amendment. When the states were represented in the senate, Scotus was careful not to tread upon state toes. Congress could make life very difficult for federal judges. The 17th upended that, and effectively repealed the 10th Amendment.

If the states appointed senators, what is the chance a president would bother to nominate a judge who had a written history of hostility to the 10th amendment? Today, the federal courts are loaded with leftists who have no trouble flicking away state laws as if they were unwanted lint on a sweater.

[Jacquerie]

It would gladden my heart to move the capitol to Kansas City.

If for no other reason, Washington DC and surrounding counties would assume a level of prosperity equal to Detroit.

[Nuc 1.1]

I agree. The easiest thing congress can do is eliminate judgeships. As you pointed out they could elevate or subordinate different courts. I believe RINOs would side with dims and prevent the exercise of this authority. Recall the gang of 14. Beyond that most in congress probably don’t know they have the authority.

[Nuc 1.1]

I also agree with the elimination of the 17th. It would go a long way toward restraining judicial hubris. But alone it is not enough. The left would just say the courts are politicized and disregard their rulings. Just like they do now with rulings they disagree with.

I don’t believe the folks have any real understanding of what their government is at the present time. They are lawless. In the not too distant future the dims are going to understand that there is nothing stopping them from declaring a dictatorship. For the people of course. I will be surprised if 0 leaves office at the end of his term.

[Political Junkie Too]

And what would that meanif oObama refused to vacate?

We can't have a legitimate Article I Congress with an illegitimate Article II executive who violated the 22nd amendment.

If Congress allows a violation of the 22nd amendment, then what's to stop them from ignoring the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th? What's to keep the People from retaliating by violating the 16th?

If Obama refuses to vacate in 2016, then I suspect that the sitting Congress will try to do the same. How can they justify holding an Article 1 election while simultaneously accepting the termination of Article II?

The only way a move like that plays out is in total chaos.

-PJ

[entropy12]

well...no one can bar 100%.

But just examine what happened in Delaware.
That RINO who was primaried by O’Donnell had 100% better chance of winning in General election that “I am not a witch” O’Donnell. He won umpteen elections before. In a state like Delaware it is stupid to nominate strong conservative candidate. O’Donnell proved that. And I sent her campaign cash!

It was the same story in Indiana. Lugar was a shoe in. Mourdock lost us Indiana.

I concur 100% with Tea party objectives. I wish their tactics were smarter. May be they are learning the reality of politics.