Skip to comments.Super Congress: Echoes of Tyranny Rising
Posted on 07/24/2011 4:46:45 PM PDT by Whenifhow
And now for something completely the same In the those who wont learn from history, are doomed to repeat it department, I give you a quote from the National Center for Constitutional Studies:
"Americas Founders had just declared themselves free of a tyrannical government. They were determined that such tyranny would never be repeated in this land. Their new charter of government the Constitution carefully defined the powers delegated to government. The Founders were determined to bind down the administrators of the federal government with Constitutional chains so that abuse of power in any of its branches would be prevented. The revolutionary idea of separation of powers, although unpopular at first, became a means by which this was to be accomplished.
John Adams, in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, stated: I call you to witness that I was the first member of Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my Thoughts on Government, in favor of a government with three branches, and an independent judiciary By the time the Constitution was adopted, the idea was supported by all of the members of the Convention. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, devoted five Federalist Papers (47-51) to an explanation of how the Executive, Legislative, and judicial branches were to be wholly independent of each other, yet bound together through an intricate system of checks and balances. Madison believed that keeping the three branches separated was fundamental to the preservation of liberty. He wrote:
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address, reminded Americans of the need to preserve the Founders system. He spoke of the love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart and warned of the necessity of reciprocal checks of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the guardian against invasions by the others. Of such checks and balances through the separation of powers be concluded, To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.
And from Harry Truman:
"There is nothing in the world except the history you do not know."
As well as, Alexis deTocqueville:
"History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies."
Americans labor under a failed government and a failed economy. High unemployment, soaring debt, want, need, desperation. Deja Vu comes knocking as our politicians are locked in a battle over our debt ceiling a battle choreographed and planned for our benefit to accomplish some nefarious end, no doubt. It is the dance of history replaying itself in the fight between freedom and tyranny.
America is bankrupt and Democrats dont want to cut spending at all. They want to keep spending in a Cloward and Piven frenzy guaranteed to destroy America once and for all. They insist on more revenue, i.e. taxes. Taxes on a suffering American public who can shoulder the burden of taxation no longer; who cannot even feed and clothe their families adequately or scrounge together the needed funds for gas to get to and from work. Does any one else feel like we are being played by both sides? These budget deals are not surpassingly awesome.
The Republicans claim they want to Cut, Cap and Balance the budget. And while Ill concede there are a number of brave souls who wish to do that, primarily the Tea Party candidates in the House of Representatives, the remainder for the most part in the Senate are far too weak kneed to accomplish the vital objective of a Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget. They now claim to have a two-step plan to come to a bi-partisan agreement with the Progressives on the Left and handle the debt ceiling. But notice, this plan is not on CSPAN. You wont see it on Fox News. Its not out in the open. Just vague innuendos from Boehner that we arent there yet and that there is a two-step plan based on Cut, Cap and Balance involving a committee. It is being cobbled together behind closed doors and in the dark of night.
I would remind people of the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany. It is eerily similar to what is happening now. In short, with the Enabling Act, the parliament granted the German government additional powers and de facto legalized Hitlers dictatorship.
And lets not forget the Communist Party of Soviet Russia and the Politburo.
We are in a similar position. The Super Congress, however, is taking the power out of the peoples hands (as delegated to their representatives) and placing it into the hands of a few before giving it to an authoritarian.
And there are more and more of the whispers speaking of a Super Congress. Starting Saturday evening, a story came forth from the New York Times that a Super Congress was being touted as a solution to the debt ceiling empasse. Hardly the most reliable source, nevertheless it is being repeated in the Huffington Post and has now been picked up byNewsMax. I pray this is wrong, because it is so unconstitutional as to bring fear into this Americans heart of another revolution and to reverberate the echoes of tyranny rising throughout America.
I ask our politicians, where is the transparency? Since when do Americans get locked out of seeing your plans? Plans that will effect each and every one of us in life changing ways. Why dont you show us what you are proposing? Sunlight is the best disinfectant bring these talks and plans into the open for all to see.
A Super Congress is not the answer. It is a Progressive/Marxist solution to a problem of their own making and will allow an elite cabal to rule over America with a dictator at the helm. Is this what we have come to? From the Huffington Post:
"This Super Congress, composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isnt mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress which some on Capitol Hill are calling the super committee would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldnt be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, whod have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process."
The article goes on to claim that John Boehner is making the Super Congress a defining point in his new proposal to raise the debt ceiling. If true, shame on him and shame on McConnell. Weve come to expect fascist maneuvering from the Progressives on the Left, but now it would seem the Progressives on the Right are rearing their unconstitutional heads.
The Tea Party and American patriots want and demand that our leaders cut spending and not raise taxes. Do not raise the debt ceiling any more. We dont want a Super Congress and we dont want to be a party to your gleeful destruction of the Constitution. Stop floating these Marxist ideas or Americans will surely see you are removed from office for good. Americans will not become subservient to an elite ruling class. We will fight you, you can be sure of that.
There is a good reason that Boehner has not pressed this plan publicly. He would be ripped to shreds by Conservatives over it and he knows it. If this story is true, we are indeed in real trouble folks. Why is this story not everywhere you look? And how much power and money was promised to those that would betray the Tea Party and Americans in general? Inquiring minds really need to know.
Whether this piece of insanity comes to fruition is yet to be seen. I dont think it will come to pass because it would mean a revolt of the people. However, I still believe there is a very strong chance that Obama will use his Executive Order power using the 14th Amendment as cover to raise the debt ceiling. Looks like this week will be one wild ride
If this effort to create a Super Congress to distill power into the hands of the few, the elite, the select succeeds, we will indeed have tyranny rising.
Mitch McConnell is a failed human being.
“Super Congress” means goodbye free country
6 from each party? Let me guess... McCain, McConnell, Snowe, Graham, Browne, and Boehner for GOP?
LOL. Ridiculous. First, they hadn't "just" freed themselves from British rule. The war was over in 1783. The colonies continued under their existing government until 1789, when the Constitution having been ratified, was put into action.
Second, their charter did anything BUT "carefully define" powers. "Necessary and proper" clause? "general welfare" clause?
Third, separation of powers was NOT a novel idea. The states had republican governments, with an executive and a legislative branch. They had a judiciary. The only thing novel was the pretense that federalism was something other than nationalism--that the states would be anything more than mere counties under the new system.
The purpose of the Constitution was to enlarge the central government, to make it a complete, consolidated government, and to make sure it had dominion over the states.
But hey, if you like fairy tales, then just ignore me.
No way that could be Constitutional
Constitution - Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
“just ignore me”
That is the intelligent portion of your post.
There’s nothing I said that isn’t true.
Another thread on this issue:
We Dont Need No Steenking Constitution
There is no way to curb the power of this bloated behemoth of a government through elections, because what they can’t win at the ballot box, they regulate so they get their way. Exhibit A is the Cap and Trade legislation that the EPA is forcing down our throats even though Congress couldn’t pass it.
The only way to kill this monster is to cut off its blood supply...money from the taxpayers. There should be some creative ideas how this can be done, but the example of the East Germans in bringing down their Communist masters holds some important clues.
There is nothing you wrote that isn’t true.
Any talk about our Founders has no revelence on todays government. The government that our Founders envisioned died in the late 1860’s. Lincoln started the burning of the Constitution and the politicains who follwed him keep the fire burning. Hamilton is smiling, Jefferson and Madison are flipping in their graves. The small Federal government idea is long gone, so deal with it.
Re: your profile, “the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men” has got to be Mencken, no? Also, that Albert Knock...just ran across his name for the first time, should I bother, and if so, where should I begin?
Our Enemy, The State
by Albert J. Nock - 1935
[It must be remembered that Mr. Nock was writing this shortly after the Coup d'état of Roosevelt and the New Deal Democrats - What he saw happening HAS HAPPENED! - We are very much closer as we enter the 21st Century to a Dictatorial Socialist State.]
In chapter 5 Nock goes on to write, 'The revolution of 1776-1781 converted thirteen provinces, practically as they stood, into thirteen autonomous political units, completely independent, and they so continued until 1789, formally held together as a sort of league, by the Articles of Confederation. For our purposes, the point to be remarked about this eight-year period, 1781- 1789, is that administration of the political means was not centralized in the federation, but in the several units of which the federation was composed. The federal assembly, or congress, was hardly more than a deliberative body of delegates appointed by the autonomous units. It had no taxing-power, and no coercive power. It could not command funds for any enterprise common to the federation, even for war; all it could do was to apportion the sum needed, in the hope that each unit would meet its quota. There was no coercive federal authority over these matters, or over any matters; the sovereignty of each of the thirteen federated units was complete.'
'But there is no need to dwell lugubriously upon the probable circumstances of a future so far distant. What we and our more nearly immediate descendants shall see is a steady progress in collectivism running off into a military despotism of a severe type. Closer centralization; a steadily growing bureaucracy; State power and faith in State power increasing, social power and faith in social power diminishing; the State absorbing a continually larger proportion of the national income; production languishing, the State in consequence taking over one "essential industry"after another, managing them with ever-increasing corruption, inefficiency and prodigality, and finally resorting to a system of forced labour. Then at some point in this progress, a collision of State interests, at least as general and as violent as that which occurred in 1914, will result in an industrial and financial dislocation too severe for the asthenic social structure to bear; and from this the State will be left to "the rusty death of machinery,"and the casual anonymous forces of dissolution will be supreme.'
John Quincy Adams, who had a much more intimate understanding of the facts than this writer, viewed things very differently.
April 30, 1839
John Quincy Adams
"The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are part of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same consistent theory of government, then new, not as a theory, for it had been working itself into the mind of man for many ages, and been especially expounded in the writings of Locke, but had never before been adopted by a great nation in practice.
There are yet, even at this day, many speculative objections to this theory. Even in our own country, there are still philosophers who deny the principles asserted in the Declaration, as self-evident truths - who deny the natural equality and inalienable rights of man - who deny that the people are the only legitimate source of power - who deny that all just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed. Neither your time, nor perhaps the cheerful nature of this occasion, permit me here to enter upon the anti-revolutionary theory, which arrays state sovereignty against the constituent sovereignty of the people, and distorts the Constitution of the United states into a league of friendship between confederate corporations. I speak to matters of fact. There is the Declaration of Independence, and there is the Constitution of the United States - let them speak for themselves. The grossly immoral and dishonest doctrine of despotic state sovereignty, the exclusive judge of its own obligations, and responsible to no power on earth or in heaven for the violation of them, is not there. The Declaration says, 'it is not in me.' The Constitution says, 'it is not in me.'"
The entire piece goes much deeper into these questions than this small excerpt. Well worth the read.
1. That the affairs of the people of the United States were thenceforth to be administered, not by a confederacy, or mere league of friendship between the sovereign states, but by a government, distributed into the three great departments—legislative, judicial, and executive.
2. That the powers of government should be limited to concerns interesting to the whole people, leaving the internal administration of each state, in peace, to its own constitution and laws, provided that they should be republican, and interfering with them as little as should be necessary in war.
3. That the legislative power of this government should be divided between two assemblies, one representing directly the people of the separate states; and the other their legislatures.
4. That the executive power of this government should be vested in one person chosen for four years, with certain qualifications of age and nativity, re-eligible without limitation, and invested with a qualified negative upon the enactment of the laws.
5. That the judicial power should consist of tribunals inferior and supreme, to be instituted and organized by Congress, but to be composed of persons holding their offices during good behaviour, that is, removable only by impeachment.
The organization and constitution of the subordinate executive departments, were also left to the discretionary power of Congress.
But the exact limits of legislative, judicial, and executive power, have never been defined, and the distinction between them is so little understood without reference to certain theories of government, or to specific institutions, that a very intelligent, well-informed and learned foreigner, with whom I once conversed, upon my using the words executive power, said to me, "I suppose by the executive power, you mean the power that MAKES the laws." . . . . Nor is this mistake altogether unexampled, even among ourselves; examples might be adduced in our history, national and confederate, in which the incumbents both of judicial and executive offices have mistaken themselves for the power that makes the laws—as on the other hand examples yet more frequent might be cited of legislators, and even legislatures, who have mistake themselves to be judges, or executives supreme.
The legislative, judicial, and executive powers, like the prismatic colours of the rainbow, are entirely separate and distinct; but they melt so imperceptibly into each other that no human eye can discern the exact boundary line between them. The broad features of distinction between them are perceptible to all; but perhaps neither of them can be practically exercised without occasional encroachment upon the borders of its neighbour. The Constitution of the United States has not pretended to confine either of the great departments of its government exclusively within its own limits. Both the senate and the house of representatives possess, and occasionally exercise, both judicial and executive powers, and the president has at all times a qualified negative upon legislation, and a judicial power of remission. To complete the organization of the government by the institution of the chief executive departments and the establishment of judicial courts, was among the first duties of Congress. The constitution had provided that all the public functionaries of the Union, not only of the general but of all the state governments, should be under oath or affirmation for its support. The homage of religious faith was thus superadded to all the obligations of temporal law, to give it strength; and this confirmation of an appeal to the responsibilities of a future omnipotent judge, was in exact conformity with the whole tenor of the Declaration of Independence — guarded against abusive extension by a further provision, that no religious test should ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. The first act of the Congress, therefore, was to regulate and administer the oaths thus required by the Constitution. ________________________________________
A toast proposed at the event:
"1. George Washington--His example was perfect: severe will be the condemnation of him, who seeks his place and disregards the authority of that example."
Even more so then Albert Nock, Garet Garrett, writing in
1938 lays it out pretty well. R and D are just useless labels that serve only the central government by keeping the populace almost evenly divided...while it has it's own agenda...one which seems to have a lot to do with imperialism and little to do with nationalism.
Not Communist...more fascist, with a corporatist twist to it.
I am a huge fan of John Quincy Adams and I am not saying that Nock was and is considered somewhat of a radical. But like Garet, he was there.
My favorite of Adams is this speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821, in celebration of American Independence Day.
And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.
She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
John Quincy Adams on U.S. Foreign Policy (1821)
“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Whatever you want to say this country is...one can no longer consider it a confederation of sovereign States.
The reality is that we have become more a Social Democracy to a great extent. Tilting at windmills is all we do and probably all we can do anymore.
I agree with Professor Ortega y Gasset when he wrote about Americans,
"The unquestioning, determined, even truculent maintenance of the attitude which Professor Ortega y Gasset so admirably describes, is obviously the life and strength of the State; and obviously too, it is now so inveterate and so widespread - one may freely call it universal - that no direct effort could overcome its inveteracy or modify it, and least of all hope to enlighten it.
This attitude can only be sapped and mined by uncountable generations of experience, in a course marked by recurrent calamity of a most appalling character. When once the predominance of this attitude in any given civilization has become inveterate, as so plainly it has become in the civilization of America, all that can be done is to leave it to work its own way out to its appointed end. The philosophic historian may content himself with pointing out and clearly elucidating its consequences, as Professor Ortega y Gasset has done, aware that after this there is no more that one can do. "
Perot was a pro-abort populist demagogue, not a conservative.
He was right about the giant sucking sound.
I question the the sincerity of those who say they oppose the barbaric act of abortion while ignorning politicians who year after year propose laws that would end this terrible practice. Ron Paul is one such politician. Since the religious right see his stance against the drug war as immoral, they ignore his efforts in Congress to change these laws.
Year after year he has proposed a “Sanctity of Life Act” only to find no backing from his fellow Congressman or the leadership of the Moral Majority. The Act still reads thus:
Sanctity of Life Act of 2009
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, and for other purposes.
Sanctity of Life Act of 2009 - Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term “person” include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act and the amendments made by this Act applicable to any case pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment.
This Act has been presented to the House multiple years in a row and few have even heard of it. Why is that?
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
To put it simply, Ron Paul is pro-choice for states.
-- Ron Paul, 'Federalizing Social Policy,' January 31, 2006
"[W]hile Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."
-- Ron Paul, 'Federalizing Social Policy,' January 31, 2006
Some might consider that Roe v Wade came about through due process of law. It had it's day in court. You might not like the outcome but the process was served.
Bad law perhaps...but then so is the Patriot Act.
As far as equal protection? Well no one is prohibited from getting an abortion. The law does not recognize that life exists as a person until some arbitrary gestation period has passed. Once again the Courts claim the ability to make such laws(regulations, in fact) based on the same reading of the commerce clause that allowed the Feds to wage a "drug war" against its own citizens.
"[W]hile Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."
And he is right. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Feds or the Courts any power to make such laws. The use of the Commerce Clause or The Necessary and Proper Clause (also known as the Elastic Clause, the Basket Clause, the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause)to make such law is imo, a usurption of power by the Central Government.
The first responsibility of all officers of government, at every level, in every branch, is to protect innocent human life.
And there is no longer any shadow of scientific doubt about when the physical existence of the human person begins: at the biological inception or creation of that person.
Other than the supreme right, the right to life, which other unalienable rights of the people do you apply this "logic" to?
You said, “The only way to kill this monster is to cut off its blood supply...money from the taxpayers. There should be some creative ideas how this can be done, but the example of the East Germans in bringing down their Communist masters holds some important clues.”
I would be very interested in learning more about that. Could you elaborate or give me a good reference to read on that?
If you think life is such an absolute unalienable right you should protest at Starke in Fl. or Huntsville in Texas every time a person is executed by the State. We are a war like people. We do not respect life as a first principle. You would have to be blind not to see that.
I myself have never had an abortion nor would I. Of course I am a man.
You go ahead and stand on that hill.
I salute you...but I have my own windmills to tilt at.
A good night to you.
This is a tremendous piece of writing.
(( ping ))
This is really good.
Ping for your consideration.
One more time. This really needs to be seen.
Well, it's the tax payers who have that control and are unwilling to pay the price to close their purses. That price is too high to carry....except of course for Washington politicians and the like...they don't "evade taxes"...a criminal offense...they "make mistakes" and apologize after the fact.
The average citizen does not control the taes pulled from his weekly paycheck...so that won't work either.
Either way the Government gets you coming or going.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.