Killing Representative Governance

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Among the exceptional characteristics of the American System is the concepts of State Sovereignty, and Representative Governance.  Both of these philosophies are rooted in the idea that individualism and independence promotes freedom by encouraging the incentive of the citizen to prosper through self-reliance.  When the people have the incentive to take care of their own affairs, and when they have the opportunity to keep most of what they produce, their prosperity, and innovative activities aimed at increasing their success in order to make their lives even more manageable, also makes the society at large more prosperous, and willing to improve its own standing through innovation and increased production.

Individualism is rooted in the idea that each person has the ability to take care of themselves, and with hard work, and a lot of planning, opportunity will open up and enable the person to decide if to pursue that opportunity, or remain at the level they are.  Market forces, of course, can alter a person's direction, or create obstacles, which is why it is important to also combine one's individuality with common sense, and personal responsibility.  The flip-side of that coin is that if one is not responsible, and if people run their lives without applying common sense, or are willing to hand over the reins to a ruling agency, their freedom will diminish, and their societal standing will not improve.

This is not to say that one, as an individual, should ignore those that have a more difficult time in climbing the societal ladder.  Charity is an important part of the responsibility one has as an individual.  The opportunity to voluntarily give to help others is a rewarding endeavor.  It brings together communities, and assists in making all parts of the society function properly in its cultural role.

Another important part of a properly functioning society is government.  The rule of law, if properly applied, is enforced by government, in order to protect freedom, and the God-given rights of the citizens.  However, as seen throughout history, centralized governments have a tendency to move towards tyranny, which, in turn, reduces the freedoms and opportunity of the citizens.  Therefore, though a central government is necessary for the protection of a societal system, such a system, if not properly maintained responsibly by the people, can become abusive, and ultimately an enemy against the very principles it is supposed to be upholding.

Representative governance is the best way for the people, and the States (in the case of the United States of America) to ensure the central government stays within the limitations granted to it through the Law of the Land, whether it is by common law, a social contract or charter, tablets of law, or a constitution.  When the representative nature of a system of governance diminishes, and the ruling elite begin grabbing power by actions outside of authorized allowances of the law of the land, while making the representative portion of the government irrelevant, the loss of liberty, and the transformation of the system into a totalitarian statist government where the rule of man takes priority, begins.

That is the stage the American System is in, right now.  President Barack Obama has repeatedly said that his policies will be put into place, with or without Congress.  In other words, he believes congressional participation is optional, and that the representative part of government is too much of a hindrance to his agenda that he is willing to make representative governance irrelevant, and put his own measures into place unilaterally.

The true power of government is its ability to make law, modify law, and repeal law.  The legislative authority of the federal government of the United States lies squarely on Congress, which is in the form of a bicameral legislative branch.  The authority is granted in Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.  You will also notice that in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the executive authority is granted to the President, and in Article III, Section 1 the judicial authority is granted to the federal court system.  Each branch has its own powers, and may not take on the powers of any other branch.  This is a concept known as "Separation of Powers."

By Executive Orders, and executive actions through the regulatory agencies, President Barack Obama has decided to take on legislative powers for himself.  He has, for example, modified the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, 27 times through his own unilateral actions.  Such a move is unconstitutional, and further diminishes the powers of the representative part of government.

The Roman Empire was not always an empire.  It began as a republic.  The Roman Republic, as long as it adhered to the Law of the Land (12 Tables of Law), and maintained a representative system that checked the powers of any executive authorities (Rome also had a bicameral legislature), Rome prospered, and freedom was protected.  The individuals of the Roman System prospered, and the advances made through innovation are legendary.  However, once the statists in Rome began to diminish the power of the legislature, and consolidated more power in the executive until finally the legislature became nothing more than a consultative assembly, Rome ceased to be a republic, and became a totalitarian empire that handed out gifts to the public from the treasury, while ruling with an iron fist, and ultimately crumbling from within as a result of corruption, immorality, and decadence.

Killing representative governance is a one way ticket to tyranny.  When too much power is afforded a ruling elite, the voice of the people becomes fainter and fainter, until eventually the legislature becomes nothing more than a rubber stamp for the executive.  That is what is happening in America, at this moment, and from a historical perspective, the next step, once the democrats consolidate all powers under the umbrella of the federal government, is a freedom killing tyranny.

Statist systems take many forms, but ultimately they are all oligarchies - rule over the many by the powerful few.  Sometimes, the system may be a monarchy, or a theocracy based on claims of religious law (as we see in Muslim countries), a dictatorship, a communist or socialist construct, or fascism.  In the end, however, due to the statist nature of each of these systems, they are the same.  The people are controlled through strict government guidelines or regulations.  Ultimately, production of goods is controlled by the ruling system, either by a government takeover, heavy taxation, or a massive regulatory system.  The claim is always the same, it is for the good of the community, but with each power grab, the rights of the individuals of that community diminishes.

The process to move the central system into full control in a totalitarian manner begins with the killing of representative governance.

To recognize how the current administration under the reins of Obama and the democrats, is doing just that, let's look at a few examples.

Net Neutrality:

We are being told by the federal government, and those that support the statist ideal, that Net Neutrality keeps the internet free.  Without federal regulation of internet providers, we are told, the greedy corporations will began charging for use of the internet at all opportunities, and ultimately destroy the ability of the common citizen to gain access to the service by prioritizing access based on ability to pay.  Sort of like cable TV, where if you want access to premium services, you will have to pay a little extra.  The theory is that providers would use this tiered system of access to ensure their subscribers see the providers content first, and must pay extra to view any content outside what the provider prefers their subscribers to access.

Net Neutrality does not keep the internet free. In fact, you already pay for it.  You pay your provider for access, and you pay some websites for premium access if they charge a subscription for that service.  If, hypothetically, the providers were to do as the proponents of Net Neutrality suggests, and make internet service more like cable television, with tiered access and premium packages, the consumers would properly regulate the market as needed.  In other words, the consumers would use the services they want, and reject the services they do not want.  If they wanted tiered service, they would use those providers.  If there were consumers that did not want that kind of service, and wanted their service to be more like it is now, new companies would emerge to provide that service.  And, without government regulations, the providers would also be free to innovate, which in the long run would make the service better for all.

The removal of government control also enables smaller websites to innovate, and to use a wider spectrum of available services to grow and succeed.

From a constitutional manner, there is no authority granted to the federal government to regulate information systems, or communication networks, therefore, they do not have the authority.

Finally, Net Neutrality, though not constitutionally authorized anyway, was never voted on by Congress, originally.  It was instituted through the FCC as a regulation.  In other words, it was a law created by the executive branch, despite the representative part of the system having the sole authority to make law.  This was a power grab by the executive branch that then also extended to the courts, where the federal court system took on a legislative role, as well, upholding parts of the regulation, and striking down other parts.  In both cases, the representative part of government was not involved, though they debated whether or not they should participate.

Court ruling overturns Net Neutrality, threatens online access, experts warn - Fox News

Remember that epic court ruling that killed net neutrality? Well, almost everyone got it wrong - PolicyMic

Net Neutrality: Should Congress Overturn the Rules - Wall Street Journal

EPA Regulation of the Coal Industry

The United States Congress has failed to put into place "Cap and Trade," which would impose government controlled carbon emission standards, but allow larger producers to buy the allowance to produce more than acceptable based on government rules.  Nonetheless, despite the fact that they do not have the authority to legislate, the executive branch's Environmental Protection Agency instituted Cap and Trade, anyway.  It did not matter to the regulatory agency that the representative portion of government disapproved the power grab by the federal government.  The EPA decided the measure was too important for the representatives of the people to be trusted with, and took it upon their own to institute the program.

The political left, mostly in the Democrat Party, has decided that coal is no longer a suitable energy source because of its "dirty" emissions, and therefore has declared war on the industry.  Instead, the liberal left wants "green energy" to be the energy of choice, so they are forcing it upon the public with massive subsidies, as they go after who they do not want to be in the energy game with  massive regulations.

Today, we call this kind of "picking the winners and losers" game "Crony Capitalism."  The founders called it "mercantilism."  This practice of manipulating the market based on the whims of the government power-brokers is not only dangerous, and places the free market at a disadvantage (hence, slowing down prosperity, opportunity, and innovation), but it is unconstitutional.  Not only does the federal government not have any authority on this issue (if there is to be regulations regarding environmental issues, it is authorized at the State level), but the EPA did it without the blessing of the legislative branch, and in fact did it in opposition of a decision by the part of government that is represented by the people.

EPA set to strike key blow against coal? - Fox News

Immigration Law

In the United States Constitution, in Article I, Section 8 the federal government is authorized to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.  In Article I, Section 9 the federal government, after 1808, is authorized to pass laws prohibiting certain groups of people from migrating into the United States, if they feel it is necessary.  In Article 4, Section 4 the federal government is required to protect the State from invasion, which, in part, means to ensure the borders are secure.  Immigration law is a federal authority.  In fact, immigration is a concurrent power, of which, once the illegal alien is inside the boundaries of the State, becomes a State responsibility, as well.

Congress has passed, in history, many immigration laws, but the executive branch has unconstitutionally refused to enforce those laws.  In Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President is directed to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

President Obama has not only refused to enforce the immigration laws in place, but has been changing those laws without the involvement of Congress.  Through executive orders, the Department of Justice, and actions through his regulatory agencies, the executive branch has been modifying law at will in regards to immigration, without even a consideration regarding the representative part of government in the form of the U.S. Congress.

Obama admin changes immigration law, allows immigrants who supported terrorists into US - Daily Caller

Gay Marriage

The homosexual agenda's push for gay marriage has become a major issue in the United States.  The battle over whether or not the definition of marriage should be forcibly changed by government to include couples of the same sex, however, has been simply acting as a distraction to what is really going on regarding this issue.  One's first inclination is, "Why is government involved in marriage in the first place?"  Second, one must ask where the authorization lies over such an issue.

The 10th Amendment states, "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."  Since there is no authority granted in the Constitution regarding marriage to the federal government, and there is no prohibition regarding the issue against the States, it is up to each State, individually, to decide how their laws regarding the sexual behavior of homosexuality should be applied.  Therefore, the federal government has no business getting involved in the issue.

The federal courts have overturned a number of gay marriage laws by States, many of which were by the vote of the people, or voted into existence by the representative government of that State.  These rulings are both unconstitutional, and a further effort to diminish the role of representative governance.

President Obama has also gotten involved, disregarding the authorities granted by the Constitution, and disregarding the Congress.  He is, through his own actions, and the actions of the Department of Justice (which falls under the executive branch) disregarding the parts of government that are representative at both the State level, and the federal level, to force his agenda, and the agenda of the democrat party and gay rights lobby, into place - despite the Constitution, and despite the representative voice of the people.

Justice Dept. latest to apply privileges, protections for same-sex spouses - Fox News

Regardless of where you stand on each of those issues, the reality that the statist left is disregarding representative governance into irrelevance is clear.  Regardless of your stance on the issues, the reality that the voice of the people through their representative system of governance in America is being ignored by the ruling elite, is apparent.  Historically, that is a sure sign that freedom is on the run, and collapse awaits the system that betrays the Law of the Land, and the representative nature of it.

The attitude that congressional participation is optional is not something being hidden, either.  Barack Obama, and his cronies, are openly stating so.  President Obama, on many occasions, has said that Congress has the option of working with him, or he will go it alone.  This is not the sign of a problem solver, but the characteristics of a ruling elitist that holds contempt for representative government, and is gladly willing to act without the voice of the people - whether the people likes it, or not.

Oh, and let's not forget that Obama slammed George W. Bush for doing what Barry considered to be the very same thing. . .




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Charles Krauthammer Explains Obama's Lawlessness in 50 Seconds - Heritage Foundation

Rand Paul: Unconstitutional for Obama to 'Go It Alone' - NewsMax

Obama: I Can Do Whatever I Want - Heritage Foundation

Obama Slammed Bush Over Executive Power in 2008 - Heritage Foundation