From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
Congress has not passed “card check,” which unions want so they can impose themselves on American workers who don’t want to be unionized. So the Obama administration sues Arizona and South Dakota and other states to impose card check via the courts.
Congress has not and will not pass the DREAM Act, which in its current form amounts to an amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. So the Obama administration is imposing part of the DREAM Act by disgraceful fiat.
Congress has not passed and will not pass any cap and trade scheme, so the Obama administration is poised to impose cap and trade via a back door “clean energy” gambit.
ObamaCare, Libya, tax and spending policy, the FCC regulating the Internet, the EPA imposing itself on Texas, the NLRB attacking state right to work laws via the Boeing case…am I missing any?
Whatever happened to the consent of the governed? It seems to have ended in January 2009.
I dunno — it’s probably in the same place as my authorization to double the amount of national debt that my taxpayer dollars will have to repay.
Come to think of it, I haven’t seen that around lately….
The solution to the problem you sight directly follows in the sentence you quoted from the Declaration.
….That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…
At some point, the States need to just start ignoring Whitehouse royal edicts and efforts. Tell the court that no matter how they rule, it just ain’t gonna happen. I suspect that the court will then decide they will not hear the suit. They won’t want any part of that fight.
Well, Rip van Preston, Congress delegated all its powers to the executive branch during the reign of Franklin the Terrible. It’s too late to reclaim them now. One attempt was made during the mad reign of Reagan the Just, but his promise to scale back the bureaucracy and to abolish the Department of Education was completely and utterly defeated, leaving the intellectual heirs of FDR’s brain trust in total and complete power.
I understand their are some “conservatives” or “Republicans” that theoretically might have opposed or might even oppose now these developments, but I’m unaware of them having any successes in the past, see, for instance, the reigns of Eisenhower the Bland or Nixon the Vengeful, neither of which reversed the delegation of all powers to the Imperial Presidency. Even now, with a House of Republicans, I have seen ZERO House bills abolishing government departments or reversing the delegation of powers. Cowards, every one of them.
The blame, however, lies with the people, who well and truly have the government they desire and deserve. Everyone of them who said, “I need farm subsidies for my farm to survive,” “I need help with my boy’s tuition,” “I can’t live well now and save for my retirement,” etc., and so voted themselves the treasury of their children.
You know, when you start off insulting the folks who run the site and write here day after day as you did, you’re probably not going to get listened to.
All right. If you believe my comment violated PJM’s standards, delete it. If I’ve hurt you. I am shamed. I’m sorry. You have my permission to edit the comment to remove any insult to you.
I don’t believe my interpretation of history is incorrect, however: no Republican or “conservative” has rolled back a single major “advance” of the New Deal, Square Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society, or Malaise Society. The election of the Eisenhower affirmed the “advances” of the new Deal; the election of Nixon, the “advances” of the Great Society, etc. and the coming election (I hope) of a Republican will affirm (I hope not) Obama’s “advances” as well. No matter who is elected.
Many of the “Republicans” were worse than Democrats: Nixon imposed wage and price controls–nothing conservative or capitalist about that; GHW Bush raised taxes and started inconclusive wars; GW Bush expanded the welfare state with his “compassionate conservatism,” another name for more taxes, more spending, more executive authority, and more bureaucracy. And Reagan failed to roll back the state, which was his record as governor, too.
Conservatives conserve, that’s what they do. And the likely nominee Romney will conserve Obama’s bold, new initiatives in presidential authority and bureaucratic growth: that’s what his record as governor suggests.
And the reason is clear: the people of America want what has been done to them. Otherwise we wouldn’t be taking about “moderates” being frightened by change (wasn’t that Obama’s message–how frightening was it?). American “moderates” want more taxes, more spending, more bureaucracy. That’s how they vote, year after year. I can’t pretend this trend started in January 2009, no matter how good a campaign slogan that makes.
“Whatever happened to the consent of the governed? It seems to have ended in January 2009.”
Agreed, Bryan. Let’s do all we can to see it restored in January 2013, if not sooner.
There is some comfort in knowing that the next prez can nullify the long list of utterly effed-up executive orders.
Obama seemingly never read about King Canute.