With all of the recent battles in Congress over increasing the borrowing limit, defunding Obamacare, and demands for a reduction, or increase, in the current barrage of deficit spending, we are constantly faced with the reality, if the sides don't come to an agreement, of a government shutdown. What exactly is a government shutdown? Is it a good thing, or a bad thing? What would the Founding Fathers think of a government shutdown?
Last October, when the Republicans refused to increase the debt limit, partially fueled by Tea Party demands to defund Obamacare, the government shut down. Eventually, the democrats used the government shutdown to their advantage, purposely shutting down federal functions in an extreme manner to ensure the public could see it, and then blamed the republicans for taking those precious federal functions away. The GOP finally gave in, the debt limit was raised, and the republicans got nothing in return out of the deal.
The bullying tactics of the liberal left democrats worked like a charm, and the conservatives, under the urgings of the more moderate establishment republicans, retreated with their tails between their legs.
I was appalled at the gutlessness.
Afterwards, as if to scold the republicans like they were a bunch of petulant children, President Barack Obama hammered on the Tea Party Republicans for daring to conduct such an act of dissent against his powerful regime. Even more sick was when Obama claimed that what the conservatives had done was against the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Barack Obama suggested in his soliloquy that the unique American system of checks and balances, and separation of powers, being used by the Tea Party Republicans was shameful, obstructive, and not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
"Let's work together to make government work better, instead of treating it like an enemy or purposely making it work worse," Obama said.
"That's not what the founders of this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self-government.
"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."
The whole premise that Obama was coming from was completely backwards. His suggestion that disagreement did not belong in the halls of Congress, and that by stopping him and his cronies from increasing the size, scope and power of the federal government hinged on sedition, couldn't be more wrong. In fact, the only way the republicans, when they shut down the government, was outside what the founders would have done, is that they did not stick to their guns long enough - until the leftists finally gave in.
To fully understand the full dynamics of where the Founding Fathers would have stood during the government shutdown of October, 2013, we must understand the context of their world, and the premise of their position. The position the democrats take on the importance of government, and the dangers of a government shutdown is warped, twisted, and outside what the Founding Fathers would have to say about such a thing.
In the world of the Founding Fathers, before the War of Independence, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the American Colonies were ruled over by a despotic British government that dictated to the colonies without colonial representation in the parliament. When the colonial leaders voiced their disagreement, they were told the colonies enjoyed virtual representation. When the colonies dared to buck the system, the British government cracked down on them, increasing taxes, and instituting mercantilism, which mandated that the colonists could only purchase goods from, or trade with, British companies, and then only certain British companies as approved by the government.
The founders did not just voice their dissent through elections, as Mr. Obama suggests, but by taking action, and by shutting down the British rule over the colonies. They dumped tea into Boston Harbor, and boycotted British products. Then, when the American government was being designed during the federal convention of 1787, those recent memories of a tyrannical British government played heavily on how our system was to be designed.
A division of power was among the primary goals. Oligarchies are dangerous because too much power resides in the hands of the few, ruling elite in control of the government. Democracies are dangerous because too much power resides in the hands of the citizenry, where the threat of mob-rule exists, and where, if a group of statists was able to convince 51% of the people theirs was a noble cause, tyrants could rise to enslave the people. The Founding Fathers were descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, the people who gave to the English-speaking peoples the Magna Carta, and the British Bill of Rights, where it was taught that the people have natural rights given to them by God, and the government has not authority to take them away. The Founding Fathers believed that nobody, including a king, or a bunch of judges, is above the law. The people must have a powerful voice, though not one steeped in pure democracy. And the States must also have their own voice, in order to keep under control the central government they had created through the delegations of their representatives during the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
The federal government was designed to have limited authorities, and for the voices of the people and the States to be the strongest influences on the workings of government. The President, and the federal judiciary, were designed to be much weaker than the legislative voice of the people, and the States. The workings of government were to be primarily guided by Congress, not the President. His role was supposed to be important, no doubt, but the President was not supposed to have powers reminiscent of the monarchy the Americans had recently dissolved the political bands connecting them to.
Government is not supposed to be all things, and in America it was never supposed to have the powers the federal government has incrementally seized. The most important component of government is the people. Though not a pure democracy, the voice of the people was still supposed to be a very important part of government, not only in running the government, but in restraining it, when necessary.
The true power of a government is in its ability to legislate. Congress has the sole authority over federal legislative powers. Only Congress, according to Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, can make law, modify law, or repeal law. This power is split between two houses of Congress, the House of Representatives, and the United States Senate.
The House of Representatives is the voice of the people. Then, as now, the representatives were elected popularly by the people, representing districts, based on population. These representatives were supposed to be the sole voice of the people in the federal government, but interestingly enough, also the most powerful voice in government.
The United States Senate was a little different back then, than it is now. The 17th Amendment of 1913 changed the nature of how Senators gained their position. Instead of being voted into office in a manner identical to that of the House of Representatives, the Senators were appointed into office by the State legislatures. This method enabled the States to have their own voice in the federal government. After all, if it was delegates representing the States that created the federal government in the first place, then surely it would be important for delegates, or in this case "Senators," from the States to maintain a level of control over the federal government, to keep it in line, and to ensure it was functioning in a manner consistent with what the States felt was constitutional.
The unique nature of our bicameral Congress, where the two houses were very different from each other, one being the voice of the States, and the other being the voice of the people, created a natural check and balance. The people (House of Representatives) and the States (U.S. Senate) were checks against each other. The people could not do much without the consent of the Senate, and the Senate could not do much without the approval of the House.
Together, the houses of Congress also served as a check against the rest of the federal government. Together, they could override vetoes by the President, impeach the President, or appointed officers and judges, and they could create and destroy parts of the inferior court system as necessary. The Congress determines the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and as the 11th Amendment attests to, the people and the States together can control what powers the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, is allowed to have.
There are certain authorities that are also unique to each house of Congress, as well, to fit the nature of their identity. The Senate, being the voice of the States, needed to be involved in the decisions by the federal government that could ultimately influence the security of the States. For this reason, the United States Senate possesses advise and consent powers. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate, judicial appointments must be approved by the Senate, and no impeachment can move forward without the hearing going through the Senate. In this way, the States, who were the creators of the federal government, could keep in check the decisions made that could influence the welfare of the States.
The House of Representatives, which in the beginning, remember, was the sole voice of the people in the federal government, also held powers unique to that house of Congress. The sole power to impeach (bring charges) belongs to the House of Representatives, and the power of the purse belongs to the House, as well.
The power of the purse is the most valuable, and powerful, tool in government, because without money, no war can be fought, no policy can be carried out, and no tyrant can rule.
Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution begins, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." This means that all budget bills, all requests for the increase of taxes, and any other items involving revenue (tariffs, duties, imposts, excises, fines) must begin in the House of Representatives. With this power of the purse, naturally, also comes the power to defund anything the representatives of the people feel they must defund.
When it comes to checks and balances, defunding is the ultimate weapon - and that tool belongs to the people. If the President, who is the commander in chief, is waging a war the people don't like, they can use the power of the purse to defund it. No money - no war. If the federal government is giving aid to a country the people do not wish to receive their tax money, then they can use the power of the purse to defund it, as well. Don't like subsidies being unconstitutionally dished out? Defund it. If a law passed turns out to be a monstrosity, rather than the saving grace the federal government advertised it to be, defund it.
Defunding is done simply by not including funding for the target in the budge bill. Though the Senate and President still needs to approve that bill, their disapproval of the bill creates a situation where other items won't be funded, either - something today's politicians call a government shutdown. If the defunding of the item is important enough, all the House of Representatives has to do is stand their ground. Eventually, the failure to be able to conduct business will force the opposition to approve the bill, losing the funding for the item in question for the sake of being able to fund everything else.
The mechanism for government shutdowns is in place specifically to give the people, through their representatives, the ultimate check and balance against the federal government.
So, to answer the question about what the Founding Fathers would think about government shutdowns, it is clear that they not only approved of it as a tool to keep an expanding government in check, but they were the ones that created the opportunity to cause a government shutdown for that purpose.
The premise used by the founders is that government is a necessary evil, and one that must be limited at all opportunities. A central government, like the federal government, has no business involving itself in issues that belong to the States, or private businesses. The federal government was not created for the purpose of dictating to the people, the States, and the free market on issues that are not external. Local government is supposed to take care of local issues. Local infrastructure issues, social issues, regulations against businesses, and health care is none of the federal government's business. The federal government was designed to handle the issues that influence the union, not the internal welfare of the States. The federal government is supposed to provide for the common defense; handle international issues such as diplomacy, our trade routes, and protecting our national border; or acting as a mediator between the States when disagreements arise. The other issues, the internal issues, are up to the States as individual, sovereign entities, and if the federal government begins to mettle in those issues unconstitutionally, one of the tools to stop the tyranny is through the budget, the power of the purse, defunding federal actions, and a perpetrating a government shutdown, if necessary.
A government shutdown is not the end of the world, and should not be. The federal government, despite what we are being told, is not supposed to be all things to all people, and the functioning of this country does not depend on government. Patriotism is not love of government, but love of country, and if the government is acting in a way outside what the people want, and outside the rule of law, it is the authority of the people to rein it in, and shut it down if necessary. Wanting to use the constitutional power to shut down government to stop an unconstitutional law like Obamacare is not the actions of anarchists, as Harry Reid once said, but the voice of those that believe in a limited government, where the people are the greatest component, and where it is the voice of the States and the people is the most important part of government - not the President, not his regulatory agencies, and not a bunch of activist judges.
If the government is not behaving, shut it down, and keep it shut down until the rule of law is back in place, the Constitution is being followed, and the demands of the representatives of the people, and the States, are met.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President Obama embarrasses republicans for their government shutdown in epic speech - Forward Progressives
No comments:
Post a Comment