We who consider ourselves Freedom Loving and Constitutional Americans proclaim our confidence in the Constitution of the United States to keep our freedoms intact, and not the men and women in government. The constitution was a novel concept in the history of mankind. The novelty was that our founders said we would not be ruled by the arbitrary dictates of men, but by the rule of law as outlined in the Constitution. The intent was that no person, regardless of rank or position, would be above the law.
James Madison, in Federalist No. 57, scoffed at the idea that members of Congress would exempt themselves from laws that applied to other people. They “can make no law,” he wrote, “which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.”
This principle, Madison declared, creates between the legislature and the people “that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.”
When we investigate the lessons of history, we find Madison not only had studied history, but also understood how prophetic history is. The Marxist concept was certainly prevalent in different forms before the America Revolution, but was more succinctly defined by the writings of Karl Marx as a philosophy in the mid-nineteenth century. The advocates of this philosophy understand the principles of Marxism cannot be implemented in a society which adheres to the concept of rule of law such as was established in the United States. History shows, in every instance where the implementation of the Marxist philosophy was attempted, the law, if it was not already, always became arbitrary and capricious. The ruling element did not follow the wisdom of Madison, and would make laws for the great mass of society, but not for them. The result has always been tyranny.
When we elect fellow citizens to become officials of our government, these citizens take an oath that they will uphold the Constitution of the United States. Per the Constitution, the power is retained by the people, so implied in this oath would be that these elected officials are servants and not rulers. Unlike other societies, including Marxist societies, these elected officials are never supposed to be above the law. Any direct or implied position to the contrary must be considered obliteration to the very essence of the Constitution of the United States.
Recently we learned members of Congress were not prohibited from trading stock using nonpublic information. This practice to the great masses is known as insider trading. Many members of the great masses have gone to prison for disobeying this law. As soon as this double standard became known to the general public, members of congress expressed outrage and quickly drafted bills to correct this situation they had created and of which many had taken advantage and enriched themselves and their families, including the former Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Yet it is something of a wonder that there is so much public excitement at the discovery that regulations that apply to lots of other people turn out to be largely irrelevant to those who serve in Congress. This isn’t an exception to congressional practice. It is, far too often, business as usual.
Consider the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. For all its good intentions, OSHA is considered by many companies a bane of their existence, the source of a constant stream of regulations and enormous costs, often for relatively small benefits. Sometimes the rules are important. Sometimes they are silly. Either way, it’s no concern of our national legislature, which, in its wisdom, has exempted itself.
Actually, the entire federal government is exempted from OSHA. But federal agencies are at least required to develop operational rules that are “consistent with” OSHA standards. This minimal requirement doesn’t include Congress, which turns out not to be an agency.
Then there is financial regulation. Critics have lamented that no equivalent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act applies to Congress. The chief executives of public companies must certify their accounts, and face fines of up to $5 million and as many as 20 years in prison if they do so falsely. Members of Congress (like all federal officials) can make up numbers without any sanction at all. Incorrect corporate numbers can mislead markets. Incorrect federal budget numbers can mislead the nation.
Examples abound. Federal minimum-wage laws apply to private employers and federal agencies; but, once again, Congress isn’t an agency. For the same reason, the Freedom of Information Act doesn’t apply. The National Labor Relations Act exempts the federal government generally, but there are special rules relating to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices of federal employees -- rules that don’t, however, apply to Congress. The Merit System Protection statutes shield personnel in executive agencies, and even in the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; not in Congress. And so on.
Madison further insisted that the American spirit -- “which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it” -- would rise up against any effort by members of Congress to make “legal discriminations in favor of themselves.” He added: “If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.”
Have we totally lost the American Spirit to which Madison refers? Are we as a people now prepared and willing to tolerate anything but liberty? To maintain liberty takes courage and sacrifice which we have seen throughout our history, but which is no longer taught in our schools or practiced by many of our citizens. We no longer investigate these accusations of our representatives usurping our power and violating the very heart of the Constitution established to protect our freedoms. We instead make an excuse for them and continue to elect them to office. Is our American Spirit so debased that we will accept this impending tyranny promised by Madison?
An administration headed by the leader of the Marxist/Progressives was elected. He has further eroded our freedoms with his implementation of the fundamental transformation he promised. His adherence to the concept of different laws for different people has gone beyond even what congress has done. We, as Freedom Loving and Constitutional Americans are at a crossroads. Will we accept what many proclaim as an inevitable fate, or will we as in the spirit of Sam Adams say we will unload that tea for you by throwing it into Boston Harbor. Sam Adams understood he was a minority. He understood all odds were against him. But he also understood he stood on the side of freedom and liberty. On which side do we stand? I stand with Sam Adams for freedom and liberty. If you do also, please help me. Go to the websitewww.mygrandchildrensamerica.com . Look at the section called Boldly Confronting Marxist/Progressives and help in any way you can. Learn and understand who this regime is and what are the goals they promised with their proclamation to fundamentally transform us.
We must assume the spirit of Ronald Reagan when he said, “If not us, who; if not now, when?”
Don Jans, Author and Speaker, mygrandchildrensamerica@gmail.com
James Madison, in Federalist No. 57, scoffed at the idea that members of Congress would exempt themselves from laws that applied to other people. They “can make no law,” he wrote, “which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.”
This principle, Madison declared, creates between the legislature and the people “that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.”
When we investigate the lessons of history, we find Madison not only had studied history, but also understood how prophetic history is. The Marxist concept was certainly prevalent in different forms before the America Revolution, but was more succinctly defined by the writings of Karl Marx as a philosophy in the mid-nineteenth century. The advocates of this philosophy understand the principles of Marxism cannot be implemented in a society which adheres to the concept of rule of law such as was established in the United States. History shows, in every instance where the implementation of the Marxist philosophy was attempted, the law, if it was not already, always became arbitrary and capricious. The ruling element did not follow the wisdom of Madison, and would make laws for the great mass of society, but not for them. The result has always been tyranny.
When we elect fellow citizens to become officials of our government, these citizens take an oath that they will uphold the Constitution of the United States. Per the Constitution, the power is retained by the people, so implied in this oath would be that these elected officials are servants and not rulers. Unlike other societies, including Marxist societies, these elected officials are never supposed to be above the law. Any direct or implied position to the contrary must be considered obliteration to the very essence of the Constitution of the United States.
Recently we learned members of Congress were not prohibited from trading stock using nonpublic information. This practice to the great masses is known as insider trading. Many members of the great masses have gone to prison for disobeying this law. As soon as this double standard became known to the general public, members of congress expressed outrage and quickly drafted bills to correct this situation they had created and of which many had taken advantage and enriched themselves and their families, including the former Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Yet it is something of a wonder that there is so much public excitement at the discovery that regulations that apply to lots of other people turn out to be largely irrelevant to those who serve in Congress. This isn’t an exception to congressional practice. It is, far too often, business as usual.
Consider the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. For all its good intentions, OSHA is considered by many companies a bane of their existence, the source of a constant stream of regulations and enormous costs, often for relatively small benefits. Sometimes the rules are important. Sometimes they are silly. Either way, it’s no concern of our national legislature, which, in its wisdom, has exempted itself.
Actually, the entire federal government is exempted from OSHA. But federal agencies are at least required to develop operational rules that are “consistent with” OSHA standards. This minimal requirement doesn’t include Congress, which turns out not to be an agency.
Then there is financial regulation. Critics have lamented that no equivalent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act applies to Congress. The chief executives of public companies must certify their accounts, and face fines of up to $5 million and as many as 20 years in prison if they do so falsely. Members of Congress (like all federal officials) can make up numbers without any sanction at all. Incorrect corporate numbers can mislead markets. Incorrect federal budget numbers can mislead the nation.
Examples abound. Federal minimum-wage laws apply to private employers and federal agencies; but, once again, Congress isn’t an agency. For the same reason, the Freedom of Information Act doesn’t apply. The National Labor Relations Act exempts the federal government generally, but there are special rules relating to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices of federal employees -- rules that don’t, however, apply to Congress. The Merit System Protection statutes shield personnel in executive agencies, and even in the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; not in Congress. And so on.
Madison further insisted that the American spirit -- “which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it” -- would rise up against any effort by members of Congress to make “legal discriminations in favor of themselves.” He added: “If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.”
Have we totally lost the American Spirit to which Madison refers? Are we as a people now prepared and willing to tolerate anything but liberty? To maintain liberty takes courage and sacrifice which we have seen throughout our history, but which is no longer taught in our schools or practiced by many of our citizens. We no longer investigate these accusations of our representatives usurping our power and violating the very heart of the Constitution established to protect our freedoms. We instead make an excuse for them and continue to elect them to office. Is our American Spirit so debased that we will accept this impending tyranny promised by Madison?
An administration headed by the leader of the Marxist/Progressives was elected. He has further eroded our freedoms with his implementation of the fundamental transformation he promised. His adherence to the concept of different laws for different people has gone beyond even what congress has done. We, as Freedom Loving and Constitutional Americans are at a crossroads. Will we accept what many proclaim as an inevitable fate, or will we as in the spirit of Sam Adams say we will unload that tea for you by throwing it into Boston Harbor. Sam Adams understood he was a minority. He understood all odds were against him. But he also understood he stood on the side of freedom and liberty. On which side do we stand? I stand with Sam Adams for freedom and liberty. If you do also, please help me. Go to the websitewww.mygrandchildrensamerica.com . Look at the section called Boldly Confronting Marxist/Progressives and help in any way you can. Learn and understand who this regime is and what are the goals they promised with their proclamation to fundamentally transform us.
We must assume the spirit of Ronald Reagan when he said, “If not us, who; if not now, when?”
Don Jans, Author and Speaker, mygrandchildrensamerica@gmail.com
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment