Charley Reese Sees a "Weimar Republic" in Our Future

King Features Syndicate | 07-23-03 | Reese, Charley

[Onelifetogive]

That's why it matters which leaders we choose. There are relatively few people in the United States who actually have the power to make important decisions.

The Constitution, for example, vests 100 percent of the power of the federal government in only 537 individuals

It a shame that our governemnt wasn't set up with a "Constitution" that limited the power of these 537 individuals to a limited set of defined tasks and said something like this at the end: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

If they had set up the government like that, we wouldn't have to worry about too much power in the hands of too few men. Oh, well.

[lelio]

bump for later reading.

[Snuffington]

Charley Reese is becoming less and less interesting to read. His "Weimar" reference above is so thin, it's worthless. He acts like that's the only example of a failed democratic government he's aware of. In fact, it's not a very analogous situation. Weimar was a defeated nation, with little history of a functioning democratic government, and a strong cultural tradition of authoritarianism. Charley ignores these differences, because they also carried a large debt. That's terribly lazy.

A more rigorous analysis of the Oswald Spengler angle would have made a much better article. I happen to think that part is right on, and I'm not sure there is much anyone can do about it.

I suspect Charley's choice of Weimar in this article is a thinly veiled attempt to paint Bush, or others like him, as a rising Hitler, which is absurd. The feverish efforts of some to portray Bush that way effectively distracts attention from the political forces that are truly endangering our republic.

[Redbob]

"The Constitution, for example, vests 100 percent of the power of the federal government in only 537 individuals — one president, one vice president, 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate."

Somebody needs to introduce Mr. Reese to the judiciary branch of the federal government - how it's composed, the unlimited power to create law, the unlimited tenure, the lack of oversight and responsibility of the members.

[Noumenon]

There will bea price, payable in blood, to re-establish what the Founders wrought.

[LiteKeeper]

This article raises an issue I have been thinking about the last couple of days. By design, our tripartite form of Federal government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) is designed to provide "check and balances."

My question is, what checks and balances are there on the Supreme Court? Judicial activism has gotten out of hand...what recourse do the other two branches of government have? Somewhere we have lost that, and the Supreme Court appears to be taking their name too seriously.

[Theodore R.]

I think that he was referring to the elected positions only. Theoretically, the Supreme Court was established at the mercy of the Congress. Weak Congresses over the years have allowed the court to become the supreme branch of government. These Congresses actually prefer the court making the major controversial decisions so as to shield the members from the potential ire of their constituents.

[Theodore R.]

Much can be done to check the Supreme Court, but with a weak Congress nothing WILL be done! with a majority vote of both houses, Congress can set aside a Supreme court decision. Similarly, it can pass legislation forbidding court review of an issue (in the Constitution, known as "court-stripping). This has not been done for nearly a century. Congress is complicit in allowing the court to gobble up the power. That protects the members from voter ire. Also, Presidents never ask that the power of the courts be checked. Ronald Reagan in fact named two liberals to the Supreme Court, and the first George Bush one such liberal.

[LiteKeeper]

Thank you. Your answer is very helpful, and worthy of further research. Maybe some of the activist organizations, like ACLJ and others, ought to start beating the drums for something to happen.

[Redbob]

Obviously he's referring to elected positions only; my point is that in doing so,he overlooks political reality in this country at this time.

And in doing that, he renders his entire article worthless.
What is the point of an analysis that ignores reality?

[Semper Paratus]

If he said "Whinner Republic" he would have been on to something.

[txzman]

'The view here is that the U.S. dollar will have disintegrated by the end of this decade. By then, the target price of gold bullion is U.S. $3,400 an ounce.'"

Although many of the theoretical underpinings do exist for something like this to happen, the doom sayers have been predicting this for 30 years.

[rdb3]

There will bea price, payable in blood, to re-establish what the Founders wrought.

Are you supporting the notion that there should be another civil war?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Bald fact: If these people are idiots, a country can go to hell in a hurry...

In the last two decades, I've met about thirty congressmen and senators. I have to say without exception I wouldn't hire any of them for minimum wage work. They were idiots to a man. But they were all democraps.

I think we're on our way to hell, but we've lasted a lot longer than might be expected.

[Chi-townChief]

Reese is stuck in a quagmire.

[cc2k]

My question is, what checks and balances are there on the Supreme Court?

The Congress can impeach and remove judges, including Supreme Court justices. The constitution provides for that.

Also, the court has no enforcement authority at all. There are no "Court Police" or "Judicial Police." The enforcement of their decisions is left to the executive branch (with funding directed by the legislative branch). So, a President and/or the congress can ignore a Supreme Court decision and essentially overturn it by not enforcing the decision, or by acting against the decision.

[gcruse]

LOL ^5!

[u-89]

>A more rigorous analysis of the Oswald Spengler angle would have made a much better article

His use of The Weimar Republic could be thin and lazy or even sinister as you suggest OR it could be that for reasons of lowest common denominator he used it. Anybody who reads a newspaper to the point of reading the op eds is educated enough to have heard of Weimar - the paramount thing Weimar is known for is hyper inflation. 2nd most known fact would be its being transformed into a dictatorship. Perhaps not perfect choices but both illustrate the points he wishes to make. If he cited ancient Syracuse how many people would readily understand the reference?

[dyed_in_the_wool]

I guess we should strike first and eliminate the National Socialists then and their charismatic leaders, eh?