Principles of Liberty (Seventeen)
By William Pressgrove
“A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent abuse of power.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 205)
As I wrote concerning principle sixteen I eluded to the very things that principle seventeen addresses. Because of the studies that Madison had done concerning the powers of government, he was fearful that the government should grow so strong that it took away the sovereignty from the people. For this purpose he proposed the three branches of government that we presently have and distributed the powers to govern amongst them so that they would have to work together to govern, but they would jealously guard the powers that they were given against encroachment from the others. He wrote: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (Federalist Papers, No. 47, p. 301, as quoted in The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, p.206)
The idea that the government could become tyrannical was a great concern for those who were about to construct a new government. The Articles of Confederation weren’t working because it didn’t give government sufficient power to protect them from encroachment, neither from foreign powers, nor upon each other. Therefore, Madison urged the different State governments to send delegated to a convention to “review” the Articles of Confederation, although he knew that the changes that needed to be made were so radical that they would abolish the Articles. However, the Constitution that came out of that convention would prove to be the best form of government to protect the unalienable rights of man and provide for a fairness of intercourse between States and foreign nations that had ever been written.
Madison commented on the responsibility of the government to rely upon the “sovereign”, in other words the people, to resolve disputes that might arise as to encroachments by any branch of government of the powers given to another. He said:
As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter under which the [power of the] several branches of government...is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same original authority...whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others. (Federalist Papers, No. 49, pp. 313-314, as quoted in The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen, p.208)
With this understanding of how the system should be working, the people should have a greater part in overseeing government to ensure that the powers of one branch are not usurped by any other branch of government. There are 18 checks and balances mentioned on pages 211-213 of The 5000 Year Leap which explain in detail the checks and balances placed in the Constitution. However for the sake of brevity, the following checks and balances are paraphrased here to remind us of our responsibility as we go into this period of history.
1. The legislature should check the presidency in law making by ensuring that “executive orders” do not take effect as law without thorough debate and approval of the legislature.
2. The President should use his veto power whenever he sees the legislature does not properly review and debate legislation that unconstitutionally uses monies from the treasury to fund pork barrel projects or for anything that is not strictly for the general welfare of the entire population.
3. Judicial review is not for the purpose of “legislating from the bench” bench, but to ensure that all legislation is constitutional. The President and Congress can check the judiciary in this by using their power to impeach, restrict the extent of the jurisdiction of the judiciary, and in filling posts on the judiciary.
For the full range of the checks and balances, go to the above referred pages.
As for how the sovereign is to make their voice heard on issues, there are three things that the people can do. First, they need to elect responsible individuals to fill the seats in the Presidency, House and Senate. Second, keep themselves informed on what those representatives are doing in government, and write to them encouraging them to do the right thing. And finally, if those representatives don’t do what the sovereign feels they should be doing, elect someone else who will do what they feel is appropriate.
These are some of our most precious checks and balances. If we are to retain our freedom, we must be vigilant in maintaining these as we make those who represent us aware of the fact that we are the sovereign governing body of this country.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Principles of Liberty (Sixteen)
Principles of Liberty (Sixteen)
By William Pressgrove
“The government should be separated into three branches—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 194)
Today, any time the President wants a law enacted he can make an “Executive Order.” That order has the weight of law (unless Congress acts within a specified amount of time to vote against it). The last time I checked, that maneuver circumvents the Constitutional process of making laws through the legislature. By the same token, the Supreme Court rules on a case and low and behold the law is changed. The last time I checked, that is called “legislating from the bench.”
So, without going into the history of Polybius and the Baron Charles de Montesquieu and how they influenced the Founding Fathers, it appears that the principle of separation of powers was to ensure that no one individual or group could gain control of all of the power in the government. It appears that this ideology has taken a back seat to a power struggle between the three branches of government. The executive wants to not only execute the law but to legislate it as well. The judicial not only wants to adjudicate the law, but to fashion laws that reflect their ideology from what they adjudicate. No, the legislative branch, instead of keeping an eye on the legislative ambitions of the other two, is more interested in the political power of partisan politics. They only want to do two things. First, they want their party to be in control, and second, to make sure they remain in office as long as they possibly can.
There are many legal uses of executive orders, but not all presidents have operated within the guidelines of what is legal. When the president acts by executive order to further a politically motivated policy it can become law if there is no opposition to it by Congress. Likewise, if no case involving the executive order is brought before the Supreme Court to be adjudicated it can remain as law. Therefore, the executive can act as, not only the executor or the law, but also legislator from the “Oval Office.”
It is not as easy to see how the Supreme Court makes law, but a prime example is the Roe v. Wade case in which the Supreme Court establishes by its ruling when life begins which opened the way for federally funded abortions. The courts in California have legislated from the bench to overturn laws in California thus allowing same-sex marriages which the citizens of California countered with Proposition 8 that established the definition of marriage in the State Constitution. Those opposed to the proposition have resorted to the court to overturn this amendment with the argument that the amendment is unconstitutional. This will be a case to keep an eye on.
With what is going on in this country right now we need to be reminded and to remind each other of this separation of powers. We need to remain involved in the affairs of our national government by writing frequently to our Congressmen and Representatives with our opinions on the legislation that is being proposed by Congress, Executive Orders that legislate, and rulings from the bench of the Supreme Court that tend to limit our rights to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
By William Pressgrove
“The government should be separated into three branches—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 194)
Today, any time the President wants a law enacted he can make an “Executive Order.” That order has the weight of law (unless Congress acts within a specified amount of time to vote against it). The last time I checked, that maneuver circumvents the Constitutional process of making laws through the legislature. By the same token, the Supreme Court rules on a case and low and behold the law is changed. The last time I checked, that is called “legislating from the bench.”
So, without going into the history of Polybius and the Baron Charles de Montesquieu and how they influenced the Founding Fathers, it appears that the principle of separation of powers was to ensure that no one individual or group could gain control of all of the power in the government. It appears that this ideology has taken a back seat to a power struggle between the three branches of government. The executive wants to not only execute the law but to legislate it as well. The judicial not only wants to adjudicate the law, but to fashion laws that reflect their ideology from what they adjudicate. No, the legislative branch, instead of keeping an eye on the legislative ambitions of the other two, is more interested in the political power of partisan politics. They only want to do two things. First, they want their party to be in control, and second, to make sure they remain in office as long as they possibly can.
There are many legal uses of executive orders, but not all presidents have operated within the guidelines of what is legal. When the president acts by executive order to further a politically motivated policy it can become law if there is no opposition to it by Congress. Likewise, if no case involving the executive order is brought before the Supreme Court to be adjudicated it can remain as law. Therefore, the executive can act as, not only the executor or the law, but also legislator from the “Oval Office.”
It is not as easy to see how the Supreme Court makes law, but a prime example is the Roe v. Wade case in which the Supreme Court establishes by its ruling when life begins which opened the way for federally funded abortions. The courts in California have legislated from the bench to overturn laws in California thus allowing same-sex marriages which the citizens of California countered with Proposition 8 that established the definition of marriage in the State Constitution. Those opposed to the proposition have resorted to the court to overturn this amendment with the argument that the amendment is unconstitutional. This will be a case to keep an eye on.
With what is going on in this country right now we need to be reminded and to remind each other of this separation of powers. We need to remain involved in the affairs of our national government by writing frequently to our Congressmen and Representatives with our opinions on the legislation that is being proposed by Congress, Executive Orders that legislate, and rulings from the bench of the Supreme Court that tend to limit our rights to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Principles of Liberty (Fifteen)
Principles of Liberty (Fifteen)
By William Pressgrove
“The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 179)
This principle is one of the most important as far as the economy of our country goes today. It contains the answer to the economic problems we are experiencing. This principle is based on the economic research and life’s work of Adam Smith. In 1776 he completed a five volume work called The Wealth of Nations. It contains all of the ins and outs of the free-market economic system. The Founding Fathers believed it was the model that this country should follow. To them, Adam Smith was able to apply natural law to economics in the most viable and natural way. Their economic philosophy worked for the first 120 years or so in spite of the frailties of human nature that reared their ugly head with the acceptance and application of the Darwinian theory of “survival of the fittest” to economics in the later part of the 19th century. It is incomprehensible how, except for the profit motive, those in power could look at the history of our country which confirms that:
By 1905 the United States had become the richest industrial nation in the world. With only 5 percent of the earth’s continental land area and merely 6 percent of the world’s population, the American people were producing over half of almost everything—clothes, food, houses, transportation, communications, even luxuries. (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 181)
How anyone would think that it was not working is beyond me. However, there were “many prominent and influential leaders losing confidence in the system. These included wealthy industrialists, heads of multi-national banking institutions and leaders in the academic world, and some of the more innovative minds in the media.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 182) Interestingly enough these individuals stood to gain the most from changes that would allow government in interfere more in the economy.
Colleges and universities began to turn their back on the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers at about the same time and started teaching as acceptable the socialistic ideologies of Carl Marx. They spoke of Adam Smith only in derision and never encouraged students to read The Wealth of Nations. These professors laid the foundation for the Keynesian theory that was introduced as a solution to the Great Depression (the same invalid solution that our politicians are employing to end the current recession/depression).
The solution that the Founding Fathers had and tried to implement, although they were not totally successful, was to rid the country of “money changers in the temple” so to speak. Congress was charged “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin...” (Article I, Section 8, clause 5). By taking charge of the money out of the private banks that now control it and produce the “boom and bust” cycles that occur in our economy and reestablish the gold standard with no possible way to slip back into the fractional banking (the practice of only having a fraction of the money loaned out on hand) we could return to the prosperity we once knew. One of the reasons I find this to be the answer is that it sends the rest of the economic world into a tizzy when it is mention like it was in the London Times:
If the mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country (the Civil War), should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe. (Quoted in Gertrude Margaret Coogan, Money Creators [Hawthorne, Cal.: Omni Publications, 1974], p. 217, as repeated in The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 190.)
So you see if it caused that much of a stir throughout the world when Abraham Lincoln almost succeeded in implementing this principle fully as the Founding Fathers intended, just imagine what it could do to remedy the current situation. That being the case, just think what it could do if other countries followed the lead of the United States. This economic policy needs to be fully discussed and debated to see how best to implement it to stabilize our economy and return this country to its former greatness. Personally I feel that a good start would be to take the “redistribution of wealth” out of the hands of Congress by establishing a Fair Tax as the foundation for financing this country.
By William Pressgrove
“The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 179)
This principle is one of the most important as far as the economy of our country goes today. It contains the answer to the economic problems we are experiencing. This principle is based on the economic research and life’s work of Adam Smith. In 1776 he completed a five volume work called The Wealth of Nations. It contains all of the ins and outs of the free-market economic system. The Founding Fathers believed it was the model that this country should follow. To them, Adam Smith was able to apply natural law to economics in the most viable and natural way. Their economic philosophy worked for the first 120 years or so in spite of the frailties of human nature that reared their ugly head with the acceptance and application of the Darwinian theory of “survival of the fittest” to economics in the later part of the 19th century. It is incomprehensible how, except for the profit motive, those in power could look at the history of our country which confirms that:
By 1905 the United States had become the richest industrial nation in the world. With only 5 percent of the earth’s continental land area and merely 6 percent of the world’s population, the American people were producing over half of almost everything—clothes, food, houses, transportation, communications, even luxuries. (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 181)
How anyone would think that it was not working is beyond me. However, there were “many prominent and influential leaders losing confidence in the system. These included wealthy industrialists, heads of multi-national banking institutions and leaders in the academic world, and some of the more innovative minds in the media.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 182) Interestingly enough these individuals stood to gain the most from changes that would allow government in interfere more in the economy.
Colleges and universities began to turn their back on the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers at about the same time and started teaching as acceptable the socialistic ideologies of Carl Marx. They spoke of Adam Smith only in derision and never encouraged students to read The Wealth of Nations. These professors laid the foundation for the Keynesian theory that was introduced as a solution to the Great Depression (the same invalid solution that our politicians are employing to end the current recession/depression).
The solution that the Founding Fathers had and tried to implement, although they were not totally successful, was to rid the country of “money changers in the temple” so to speak. Congress was charged “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin...” (Article I, Section 8, clause 5). By taking charge of the money out of the private banks that now control it and produce the “boom and bust” cycles that occur in our economy and reestablish the gold standard with no possible way to slip back into the fractional banking (the practice of only having a fraction of the money loaned out on hand) we could return to the prosperity we once knew. One of the reasons I find this to be the answer is that it sends the rest of the economic world into a tizzy when it is mention like it was in the London Times:
If the mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country (the Civil War), should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe. (Quoted in Gertrude Margaret Coogan, Money Creators [Hawthorne, Cal.: Omni Publications, 1974], p. 217, as repeated in The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 190.)
So you see if it caused that much of a stir throughout the world when Abraham Lincoln almost succeeded in implementing this principle fully as the Founding Fathers intended, just imagine what it could do to remedy the current situation. That being the case, just think what it could do if other countries followed the lead of the United States. This economic policy needs to be fully discussed and debated to see how best to implement it to stabilize our economy and return this country to its former greatness. Personally I feel that a good start would be to take the “redistribution of wealth” out of the hands of Congress by establishing a Fair Tax as the foundation for financing this country.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Principles of Liberty (Fourteen)
Principles of Liberty (Fourteen)
By William Pressgrove
“Life and liberty are secure only so long as the right to property is secure.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 169)
It isn’t rocket science to see that if an individual has no rights to be secure in his property, that Darwinian law “survival of the fittest” would be the rule. John Locke had the right idea when he said, “God, who hath given the world to men in common, has also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience.” (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, p. 30, par. 25) Without this idea of using it to the best advantage of life, then men would be stuck in the stone ages where no one would do anything more than provide a subsistence living for themselves and their family. In order to go beyond the subsistence living, a man must be secure in his property; otherwise, no one would work to improve their property because just as soon as they did, someone stronger or smarter would come along and take it away from them.
What John Locke said becomes the key. Knowing that the Founding Fathers gave a lot of credence to John Locke’s philosophy, it is understandable that they incorporated that philosophy into the form of government they designed for this country. That philosophy relies heavily on an understanding of the relationship between God and man. Without a belief in that philosophy this country becomes ungovernable. John Adams expressed most succinctly when he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (as quoted in The Myth of Separation, David Barton, p. 123) It is that “moral and religious” belief that allows us to own property and “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:26) If it weren’t for the Christian religion and Christian principles that the Founding Fathers believed in, we wouldn’t have a Constitution designed to protect our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
What we see happening is a systematic erosion of those principles and the underlying beliefs through the weakening of the religious foundation by a misguided public that has been fed the line “separation of church and state” to the point that they don’t understand that what they wish for will ultimately take away from them the freedoms that they so desire to have. It is imperative that we educate those around us to the dangers of excluding religious principles as the rules by which the country should be governed. An understanding of the integral relationship of Christian principles and the governance of the country has to be instilled in our children so that they know the foundation upon which their freedom and liberty rest upon.
This should be one of the things that parents discuss with their children and an intimate part of their relationship with their children. By doing so, the next generation will grow up with a correct understanding of what freedom and liberty really are and how precious they are to the joy and happiness they enjoy.
By William Pressgrove
“Life and liberty are secure only so long as the right to property is secure.” (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen p. 169)
It isn’t rocket science to see that if an individual has no rights to be secure in his property, that Darwinian law “survival of the fittest” would be the rule. John Locke had the right idea when he said, “God, who hath given the world to men in common, has also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience.” (Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, p. 30, par. 25) Without this idea of using it to the best advantage of life, then men would be stuck in the stone ages where no one would do anything more than provide a subsistence living for themselves and their family. In order to go beyond the subsistence living, a man must be secure in his property; otherwise, no one would work to improve their property because just as soon as they did, someone stronger or smarter would come along and take it away from them.
What John Locke said becomes the key. Knowing that the Founding Fathers gave a lot of credence to John Locke’s philosophy, it is understandable that they incorporated that philosophy into the form of government they designed for this country. That philosophy relies heavily on an understanding of the relationship between God and man. Without a belief in that philosophy this country becomes ungovernable. John Adams expressed most succinctly when he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (as quoted in The Myth of Separation, David Barton, p. 123) It is that “moral and religious” belief that allows us to own property and “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:26) If it weren’t for the Christian religion and Christian principles that the Founding Fathers believed in, we wouldn’t have a Constitution designed to protect our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
What we see happening is a systematic erosion of those principles and the underlying beliefs through the weakening of the religious foundation by a misguided public that has been fed the line “separation of church and state” to the point that they don’t understand that what they wish for will ultimately take away from them the freedoms that they so desire to have. It is imperative that we educate those around us to the dangers of excluding religious principles as the rules by which the country should be governed. An understanding of the integral relationship of Christian principles and the governance of the country has to be instilled in our children so that they know the foundation upon which their freedom and liberty rest upon.
This should be one of the things that parents discuss with their children and an intimate part of their relationship with their children. By doing so, the next generation will grow up with a correct understanding of what freedom and liberty really are and how precious they are to the joy and happiness they enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
