Nicola
08-28-2006, 01:02 PM
What do you think?
Has the hammer hit the nail on the head?
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=63373&eddate=08/26/2006
President as king
By Keith Kreitman
Many bloggers on the Internet have been having a hot old time ridiculing a statement by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her U.S. District Court ruling that strikes down the administration’s NSA eavesdropping program: “There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.”
The reference to “hereditary kings,” really tickles their funny bones, because they haven’t a clue to what she is referring.
She followed with: “It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the Bill of Rights (i.e.. limitations put upon the executive in addition to those in the original constitution). The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for each other.”
I have no idea of which way this decision will go as it wends its way up to the Supreme Court, but it does expose the pervasive ignorance of the Constitution endemic in this country, even among so-called educated writers and commentators. There is an unforgivable ignorance among citizens as to the foundation of the laws of this land.
Immediately, after the Revolution was won, there were discussions of what kind of government should be founded. The world at that time was almost exclusively ruled by hereditary Princes and Kings who were the supreme powers and the final laws in their own domains.
George Washington was even approached with the possibility of his assuming kingship, which, of course, he refused.
Having suffered under the dictatorial rule of George III of England, the founders were wary of granting too much power to any potential head of the American state.
But, there needed to be some head of state, so, when the U.S. Constitution was finally written he was called the president and the powers granted to him were severely circumscribed.
Most of the most important powers, such as initiating taxation and declaration of war were reserved for the Congress, particularly for what was termed the “people’s house,” the House of Representatives.
They considered these the primary law makers and made them go to the people for advice and re-election every two years, more often than the rest of the national government.
Adding to the woes of any president’s ambition for greater power was the raising of the Supreme Court to an equal level to the other two branches, when Chief Justice John Marshall in the early 1800s established the power to review the constitutionality of legislation and executive action. So, there were now two branches powerful enough to “check” on the president and keep him in balance, ala the Constitution.
So, what happened? How did the nation’s respect become focused primarily upon president, improperly enlarging his prestige in relation to the other two branches?
How did it lose perspective that this is in reality a three part national government?
Why were some citizens beginning to pay homage to some presidents equal to that formerly given to kings?
For one thing, it was due to the rise of political parties, particularly expanded during the Andrew Jackson presidency. Now, presidents of one party could “expect” the support of members of their same party in the Congress, enforced by party discipline (“You want to keep your committee chairmanship, guy? Vote the Prez’s way, or else!)
So, the Congress, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, was no longer an independent primary power leading the national agenda. It had now become a “power of party loyalty.”
And, with such “King’s Courtiers” in tow, the power of the presidency grew.
The most egregious example of president as king was that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s, who was granted by the Congress anything and everything he desired until he was stopped dead in his tracks by the Supreme Court.
But, most presidents never give up. They find many creative ways to avoid the founder’s intent.
And, George W. Bush is in contention for the World Cup in that game.
We needn’t review here the things that are being uncovered about what he has been doing since elected to covertly ignore, avoid and subvert Congressional legislation and oversight.
With some justification, it has been called “the Secret Government.”
Congress has the exclusive right to declare war? Forget it. There hasn’t been such a declaration since 1941.
President Truman got us into Korea with the fiction that we were participating in a United Nations police action.
President Lyndon Johnson got us full square into Vietnam with a resolution from Congress based on the report of an attack on one of our warships that he knew was phony.
The First President Bush took us into Panama; President Reagan into Grenada. And, Bush II got us into a full-scale wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on congressional votes based on provable fictions.
So, the founder’s establishment of Congress’ power to declare war has, in effect, been rendered obsolete by some president/kings.
But, Bush II is not the only president who has used subterfuge to acquire more power. There was President Polk and the phony Mexican-American war, the phony blame for the sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbor that led to the Spanish-American war, secret actions by President Reagan in Iran-Contra.
I could go on with the list, but the bottom line is presidents tend to avoid oversight by the other branches of the national government when ever possible as they push themselves toward kingships.
And so, today, ditto head clones on the Internet and on talk shows dig up and spin reasons that with this president, it ain’t really so.
Oh, yah?
Meanwhile, the Founding Founders turn over in their graves.
Has the hammer hit the nail on the head?
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=63373&eddate=08/26/2006
President as king
By Keith Kreitman
Many bloggers on the Internet have been having a hot old time ridiculing a statement by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her U.S. District Court ruling that strikes down the administration’s NSA eavesdropping program: “There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.”
The reference to “hereditary kings,” really tickles their funny bones, because they haven’t a clue to what she is referring.
She followed with: “It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the Bill of Rights (i.e.. limitations put upon the executive in addition to those in the original constitution). The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for each other.”
I have no idea of which way this decision will go as it wends its way up to the Supreme Court, but it does expose the pervasive ignorance of the Constitution endemic in this country, even among so-called educated writers and commentators. There is an unforgivable ignorance among citizens as to the foundation of the laws of this land.
Immediately, after the Revolution was won, there were discussions of what kind of government should be founded. The world at that time was almost exclusively ruled by hereditary Princes and Kings who were the supreme powers and the final laws in their own domains.
George Washington was even approached with the possibility of his assuming kingship, which, of course, he refused.
Having suffered under the dictatorial rule of George III of England, the founders were wary of granting too much power to any potential head of the American state.
But, there needed to be some head of state, so, when the U.S. Constitution was finally written he was called the president and the powers granted to him were severely circumscribed.
Most of the most important powers, such as initiating taxation and declaration of war were reserved for the Congress, particularly for what was termed the “people’s house,” the House of Representatives.
They considered these the primary law makers and made them go to the people for advice and re-election every two years, more often than the rest of the national government.
Adding to the woes of any president’s ambition for greater power was the raising of the Supreme Court to an equal level to the other two branches, when Chief Justice John Marshall in the early 1800s established the power to review the constitutionality of legislation and executive action. So, there were now two branches powerful enough to “check” on the president and keep him in balance, ala the Constitution.
So, what happened? How did the nation’s respect become focused primarily upon president, improperly enlarging his prestige in relation to the other two branches?
How did it lose perspective that this is in reality a three part national government?
Why were some citizens beginning to pay homage to some presidents equal to that formerly given to kings?
For one thing, it was due to the rise of political parties, particularly expanded during the Andrew Jackson presidency. Now, presidents of one party could “expect” the support of members of their same party in the Congress, enforced by party discipline (“You want to keep your committee chairmanship, guy? Vote the Prez’s way, or else!)
So, the Congress, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, was no longer an independent primary power leading the national agenda. It had now become a “power of party loyalty.”
And, with such “King’s Courtiers” in tow, the power of the presidency grew.
The most egregious example of president as king was that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s, who was granted by the Congress anything and everything he desired until he was stopped dead in his tracks by the Supreme Court.
But, most presidents never give up. They find many creative ways to avoid the founder’s intent.
And, George W. Bush is in contention for the World Cup in that game.
We needn’t review here the things that are being uncovered about what he has been doing since elected to covertly ignore, avoid and subvert Congressional legislation and oversight.
With some justification, it has been called “the Secret Government.”
Congress has the exclusive right to declare war? Forget it. There hasn’t been such a declaration since 1941.
President Truman got us into Korea with the fiction that we were participating in a United Nations police action.
President Lyndon Johnson got us full square into Vietnam with a resolution from Congress based on the report of an attack on one of our warships that he knew was phony.
The First President Bush took us into Panama; President Reagan into Grenada. And, Bush II got us into a full-scale wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on congressional votes based on provable fictions.
So, the founder’s establishment of Congress’ power to declare war has, in effect, been rendered obsolete by some president/kings.
But, Bush II is not the only president who has used subterfuge to acquire more power. There was President Polk and the phony Mexican-American war, the phony blame for the sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbor that led to the Spanish-American war, secret actions by President Reagan in Iran-Contra.
I could go on with the list, but the bottom line is presidents tend to avoid oversight by the other branches of the national government when ever possible as they push themselves toward kingships.
And so, today, ditto head clones on the Internet and on talk shows dig up and spin reasons that with this president, it ain’t really so.
Oh, yah?
Meanwhile, the Founding Founders turn over in their graves.