It’s president’s day (yawn). Another day that overpaid state and Federal employees get as a vacation.
Considering where our country started, from the “founding fathers”, can you clearly see where we are today, and where we are heading?
It makes a sane person angry. Government dependence (the goal of socialism/communism) is at an all time high, government is bigger than ever, and our freedoms are evaporating.
Obama took an oath a few weeks ago to protect and defend the constitution (a joke). What would the founding fathers think of our “president” and what would they do about him?
Ideals of Constitutionalism
Though Constitutionalism, the spirit of Constitution, had already been alive and practised for many years, the Magna Carta, by general consent of history, is now widely accepted as the world’s first major constitutional document. Indeed it is interesting to read the constitutions of the USA, both the Federal Constitution and those of individual States, as well as the constitutions of many Commonwealth countries, and to note how many passages from Magna Carta have simply been copied word for word.
Magna Carta provided Britain’s reformers with a firm foundation, a cornerstone on which subsequent constitutional documents could be added to form the assemblage which, combined with unwritten custom, is commonly referred to as Britain’s “Constitution” today.
Constitution limits absolute power. This it achieves by placing conditions on the use of that power, by requiring the sharing of power with those subject to it through a process of debate, and by establishing boundaries beyond which the Law may not intrude.
In its early days the Constitution may be weak, it may have little of practical value to say. But once the principle has been established that the Central Power, whatever form it may take, is itself subject to some superior framework of rules and procedures which define the use of that power to any extent whatsoever, the nation is on the right path, and it is only a matter of time before the rules defining the use of Centralized Power are strengthened.
No Government, President or Monarch, no institution of Law or Enforcement, should be created or be allowed to exist and to function without a Constitution. No one should have power over others, unless and until that power and the conditions of its use have been strictly defined. In the words of Thomas Paine: “Government without a Constitution is power without right” (What better description is there of today’s government?).
Today we understand clearly and accept fully the idea that Constitution limits absolute power. Yet for early reformers of autocratic Monarchies it was a contradiction in terms to talk of limiting absolute power. If the power is absolute, then how can it be limited except through a greater power, and what is the nature of that greater power?
The “greater power” which sets limits on Autocrats and Parliaments is the power of reason and custom.
Relying for support on the strength of public opinion, from the most influential to the broad mass of the people, the spirit of Constitutionalism was originated and developed by theorists and idealists, and based on a universally recognized, instinctive awareness of what is right and wrong in law and social conduct.
“The idea of Constitutionalism is older than the existence of written Constitutions. Constitutionalism places limits upon Government, proscribing the means by which official power may be exercised. Constitutionalism establishes boundaries between the State and the individual, forbidding the State to trespass into certain areas reserved for private action.
Now, we have a president with no regard for the constitution, who wishes to be dictator and has taken many measures to attain this status (NDAA). We are headed right down the same path as communist Russia and Nazi Germany.
“All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts not only because of their historical development – in which they were transferred from theology to the theory of the state, whereby, for example, the omnipotent god became the omnipotent lawgiver – but also because of their systematic structure, the recognition of which is necessary for a sociological consideration of these concepts. The exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology. Only by being aware of this analogy can we appreciate the manner in which the philosophical ideas of the state developed in the last centuries.”
“The exception is more interesting than the rule. The rule proves nothing; the exception proves everything. In the exception the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism that has become torpid by repetition.”
“Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignity (also known as the “Crown Jurist of German National Socialism, also known as Nazism)
WB: If you want to concoct a philosophical theory of extrajudicial killing, Carl Schmitt is Mr Ground Zero. Schmitt was just the kind of chap who could have written a wonderful 16 page memo explaining extra-judicial killing under Presidential authority. In fact, for Hitler, that is apparently precisely what he did.
Socialism. The Nazi Party believed in statist socialism nearly identical to what Obama proposes. Towards that end…
Hitler nationalized healthcare, the banking system, and the transportation system. Obama has proposed doing the same or in the case of healthcare has already done it.
Hitler blamed a specific group for the economic woes of the majority, Obama has done the same. In Hitler’s case it was the Jews. In Obama’s case it’s the nebulous “top 1%” of earners, the vast majority of which are certainly white.
Hitler re-distributed wealth. He took the accumulated wealth of German Jews and gave it to those who did not earn it. Obama has proposed to do the same, but so far the GOP Congress has slapped him down time and time again.
Hitler used propaganda and event staging as a tool to control the masses. Obama does the exact same thing.
Hitler pitted various groups within Germany against each other. Obama has been very adept at doing likewise to further his political ends.
Hitler abused his executive power. Obama has threatened to rule by fiat as well.
Hitler tried to deficit-spend his way to German prosperity and exponentially increased the German national debt. Obama has done the same.
Hitler continually blamed his predecessors for his nation’s ills. Obama does the same.
Hitler commanded blind devotion from his followers, many of whom were known to faint at his speeches and events.
Hitler indoctrinated school children with Nazi propaganda. Mmm mmm mmm, Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm mmm mmm…
Hitler continually interjected himself into the affairs of other nations, and as with Obama, always making things worse as a result.
Hitler had issues with his origins and parentage as does Obama.
Hitler had his “Hitler Youth Brigade” made up entirely of Aryan members, Obama had (it’s fizzled, thank God) his “Obama Youth Brigade” made up 100% of young black males.