By Douglas V. Gibbs
Americans often call America a democracy. Broadcasters will even voice the same. Those around the world also call us a democracy, because they do not understand the alternative when it comes to the promotion of liberty. What the U.S. Constitution says is that the United States of America has a Republican form of government.
A Republic is a government in which the power structure consists of representatives elected by the people. This system is not to be confused with a parliamentarian system which is a system of government where the executive and legislative branches are intertwined, and there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. In a republic the executive branch exists, and presides, separately from the legislature.
Democracies, however, are political systems of government carried out either directly by the people, which is a direct democracy, or by means of elected representatives of the people, which is called a representative democracy. America has been hurdling toward becoming a representative democracy, but still remains a republic at this point. Democracies tend to become a system of mob-rule, and once the people can be fooled, there are no checks and balances to keep a single ruling power to gain control of the government. As a result, a democracy is a transitional form of government that will always lead to a system in which the government is run by a powerful few, and liberty diminishes rapidly as the people begin to lose their voice under an authoritarian oligarchy.
Barack Obama intends to change the American form of government from a constitutional republic into a system that allows the federal government a more authoritative role over the people. His plans have been revealed a number of times in the words Obama has spoken, and in his various writings. When Mr. Obama's made a comment on the type of justice he is looking for as a replacement for United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, he said, as indicated in the New York Times, that he is looking for a justice that "knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."
If that statement was annotated a note would be added that one powerful interest, in his opinion, should be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens, and that the powerful interest that should be given such power is the federal government - in Obama's opinion, of course. The annotation would be supported by the fact that the health care reform bill was passed into law. The passage of the health care reform bill was clearly against the will of the people.
The key part of that statement, however, is the fact that he called America a democracy.
If a republics as a form of government designed to protect the rights of the people through a representative government of which divides power at every opportunity, then Obama's refusal to call the United States a republic, and his decision to call it a democracy instead, tells me the rights of the people means very little to this man. I believe Obama to be a nationalist (love of government) rather than a patriot (love of country).
The founders understood that some kind of government was necessary to keep the rule of law in any civilized society, but also recognized that government with too much authority takes away freedoms from the people in a never ending need for more and more power. Without government the citizens must protect their property and family without the assistance of any outside agency. With law enforcement, and a government in place, the people enjoy more freedom, no longer required to individually protect their property from the criminal element. When the proper amount of government is in place, freedom is enjoyed at its maximum potential.
Barack Obama, by calling the United States a democracy, tells us either he is so ignorant that he doesn't understand the true nature of the American form of government, or he believes it to be a democracy, in transition to becoming an oligarchy - a rule by the powerful few that he plans to be a part of.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Stevens’s Retirement Is Political Test for Obama - The New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment