Friday, October 10, 2014

What happened to checks and balances?

The founding fathers created a system of checks and balances in order to prevent one of the three branches of government from gaining too much power.  They were afraid that some day someone would gain power and abuse it, much like a king would do in Britain.

Today, however, there are no checks and balances.  The Supreme Court doesn't check anything.  Congress isn't checking anything.  In fact, Congress has given up its power to the president.

Democrates don't care when a democrat president bypasses the law when his pen is advancing their agenda.  Republicans don't care when a republican president bypasses the law when his pen is advancing their agenda.  So there seems to be a problem regardless of what party is in charge.

Republicans surely are afraid if they oppose Obama's executive orders they could easily be seen as Hippocrates.  And those who are willing to fight are afraid they will lose votes, so they stay silent.

The current president has gone crazy writing executive orders.  Surely it might be for good causes, but it's not right to ignore the law to get what you want, even for a noble president.

Gwyneth Paltrow recently said, "It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass."

The problem with that is he already appears to have this power with his pen.  No one wants amnesty, but he appears ready to make it law by ignoring congress and using his pen.  This is what dictators do.  If there are no checks and balances, what we have is a dictator president.

Is that was Paltrow wants?  If that's the case, then what happens when someone is in power that she does not like?  Will she want that guy to continue to have those powers.  What if that guy is Rahn Paul? What if that guy is Jeb Bush?  What if it's Sarah Palin?

I will be honest with you: I don't care if the president is advancing an agenda I like with his pen or not, it is wrong and it is scary.  It is not conducive to a functioning democracy let alone a republic.

The constitution made it very difficult to change or add laws.  The founders wanted to make sure people didn't get laws they did not want.  By it being difficult to pass laws, mainly due to checks and balances, this prevented our leaders from passing laws based on emotion.  This was needed mainly to protect the minority from the majority.

So, as it stands right now, there are no checks and balances.  What we have is Paltrow's Dictatorship.

Perhaps Paltrow would take back her words, and our leaders would make a bit more effort to stop the abuse of executive powers, if they understood why the founding fathers created a system of checks and balances.

The founders knew that for 99.9% of history people lived under tyrannical dictator governments.  The people hated it; they were unhappy; they were miserable.

Under such a system the people had no power, and were often forced to do things "for their own good."  We hear that a lot these days, every time a law is passed that no one wants, such as Bloomberg did in New York when he kept passing laws that told people what they could and couldn't eat.  "It's for their own good," he'd say.  What does he know what's for our own good.  Is he a dictator or something?

Worse is that those in with dictator-like powers constantly yearned for more, and so more laws were passed at the expense of freedom and liberty. It was for this reason the founders wanted it to be very difficult to get a law passed.

Today, however, presidents have found a way to use their pens to bypass the checks and balance system.  They have, in essence, gained dictator-like powers.

Even when laws they pass violate the constitution the supreme court lets it slide by on the grounds of "the president has the same agenda as we do."

The problem with this is that judges are supposed to make sure the laws are followed, regardless of what their personal views are.  So the supreme court has abnegated its powers to the president.

Today's presidents have found a way to bypass the law, and the supreme court, altogether by way of pen and paper.  Surely there is a need for executive power, but it was supposed to be reserved for emergency situations when congress was not in session.

So the checks and powers established by the founders are no longer be followed, not by Congress, not by the courts, not by opposing parties.

It's easy for people to become corrupted.  The founding fathers envisioned this as they put into the Constitution Article V which gives the states the right to form a convention to force the Constitution on the three branches.  Some are now calling for a Constitutional Convention.

It's a shame we have come to this point as a nation of laws.  One would hope it does not take some national travesty to force our leaders to wake up.

Read: Mark Levin: The Liberty Amendments