The whole point of the Constitution is that it is above, apart from, and not affected by whirling winds of change. Our interpretation may change and our nation may veer from the course it lays out, but it cannot die.
Democracy didn’t die, nor did the Republic. There was a set back, that is all. And this set back, for it’s high profile and broad reach, gives more energy to those who wish to see it repealed and redone than it does to those who want it kept and expanded.
Today it become crystal clear to ever more people just where the parties stand regarding the health of the nation and the prosperity of its citizens. Democrat leaders cannot hide from the fact they instituted one of the largest tax increases on every American in history during one of the harshest recessions. The Tea Party and lovers of liberty have a common and specific goal to direct Republicans towards. The battle lines have been drawn.
No, the Constitution cannot die. We the people shall see to it.
This means first that I must act in a way that is responsible for myself. Live out the consequences of my choices without needlessly burdening others. Other have their own troubles and their own responsibilities. When we each who are capable live in this way we both free others to do the same and free ourselves to be more able to help those who truly are needy.
It is a paradox that those who are most self-sufficient are those most capable of helping those who are not.
Existing social structures are each responsible in turn: Family follows the self, then friends, then community and civic/social groups, then local government, then state government, then federal government. This does not mean the federal government is the ultimate authority. It means that the federal government is only authority when and in circumstances where all other levels have either failed, abdicated, or are incapable on sufficient scale to bear any given responsibility. This is the same for each succeeding layer of responsibility: Family is only responsible for that which the individual is not capable of being responsible for. An infant is capable of very little in themselves, so the family is responsible for them, but the family is also responsible for raising that infant to take responsibility to the utmost of it’s capability. When the family fails, or a situation gets beyond, or is beyond, the family’s capability, greater numbers of involved and invested and capable people, friends that is, then share in the responsibility. This does not have to be only in serious situations, it could be when children go off to play together at each others houses, friends share in responsibilities to the benefit of all. Then communities such as churches, clubs, social circles and the like, to which we have voluntarily joined ourselves, bear a certain level of responsibility.
You can see the graduating layers as each successive level bears some responsibility innately and then gains certain responsibility based on specific situations and circumstances. The way to visualize this is as a pyramid: The individual has ultimate responsibility, that is, first and last. While others may become responsible at different times and in different situations, the individual has first responsibility and will answer at the end for all that pertains to them whether others were involved or not. Each successive and broadening layer then goes down, not up, in authority over the individual and over each successive layer. This leaves federal government not as the ultimate responsible party but as the last responsible party. In some ways this last position equates with “least”. It is last in priority, and therefore has least priority in the layers that stand above it. It is not a foundational position either. The foundational responsibility can only belong to something outside, something not us. God does not form a layer below the federal government, God forms the all-encompassing framework inside which the entire pyramid exists.
The second outcome of self-responsibility is that each successive layer of responsibility ought to generally, as a matter of course, act in a way that is not-responsible towards those layers that are above it in priority. Family only takes responsibility for the individual when and where that individual is incapable of being self-responsible. Friends, only when and where the family is beyond it’s capability. And so on. The various layers of government ought only bear that responsibility for which all other layers are incapable or not suited. This does not mean that each successive layer out to act antagonistically to those layers above it in responsibility, but ought instead to build up each layer in order that those other layers are MORE capable, and so that responsibility only falls upon the lower layers when all else has failed. In other words, the family ought to build up the individual so that the family is less necessary, and less likely to be called upon to support that individual as it matures and takes on more responsibility for itself. The friends ought to build up the family and the individual in the same way, and the community ought to do the same for the friends and the family and the individual, and so on. This structure of reinforced and supported and encouraged responsibility results in the strongest communities, the strongest families, the strongest nations, because each individual and each successive layer of responsibility is invest in those that take priority above it, and as each successive layer is made as strong as it can, the entire structure can bear much weight and stress in times where responsibility increases or situations change for any given layer.
The federal government, then, ought to be primarily invested not in centralizing responsibility, authority, and power to itself, but instead in divesting authority. Not delegating, for that implies that it retains ultimate responsibility and is superior to those layers which are in fact superior to it. But divesting authority, actually giving it away (or, more realistically, having it taken away) to those layers which it ought to instead be supporting and reinforcing so that they are able and capable of bearing more and more responsibility and authority.
The President of the United has invoked Executive Privilege to prevent release of documents regarding the Fast and Furious scandal. Executive Privilege is generally used to protect documents and records involved directly in the programs and issues of the President, not the Attorney General or the Justice Department. It’s Executive Privilege, not AG Privilege. Which then begs the question:
After all, it’s been Attorney General Eric Holder, presiding over what has arguably become the most partisan and unjust Justice Department we’ve seen in a long time, who is in the hot seat with Congress breathing down his neck over the gun-running Fast and Furious program which ended up killing at least one Border Patrol and likely countless Mexican civilians, all in the name of giving the gun lobby a bad name, which attempt blew up in the anti-gun Justice Department’s face, and purportedly to track criminal and drug running gangs in Mexico, which attempt also blew up in American Law Enforcement’s face. They’re 0 for 2 so far. So if Eric Holder is the one Congress is after, trying to get him to tell them who knew what and when they knew it, why is President Obama wading into this, getting close to the political and judicial mud pile, and putting his name and that of his Presidency on the line by invoking Executive Privilege to prevent the turning over of documents by the Justice Department to Congressional investigators regarding this program?
There are a few reasons I can think of, but there’s no telling which of them, if any, are more accurate.
The obvious one that’ll spring to most people’s minds is that proof of knowledge of the program extends beyond Eric Holder, and that President Obama himself, probably hoping to score another Law and Order PR coup, knew about and possibly even explicitly authorized the Fast and Furious program and is now afraid that he’d burn along with Holder should the documents come out?
A less obvious but still possible reason is that Valerie Jarret, who has long been suspected of being Attorney General Eric Holder’s biggest fan and supporter in the White House, has cajoled/demanded/begged/manipulated the President into invoking Executive Privilege simply to protect her most favorite man in D.C., tying the President to the sinking ship of Fast and Furious to protect Mr. Holder. Is Ms. Jarret willing to sacrifice the Presidency to protect the Attorney General?
I have no facts or basis for any of these theories, they are entirely my own wild speculation.
“Crying Mike” (or was that “Vinny”) gives a heart wrenching argument why Scott Walker should have lost the recall election. It boils down to the fact that Vinny worked too hard to have his guy lose. His guy being, of course, Tom Barrett.
Growing up in California and spending several years in the Chicago area all accustomed me to political disappointments, repeatedly and regularly.
I’ve worked for campaigns, involved non-profits, and as a private individual in many elections and on many issues. I’ve spoken before city councils, written letters to the editor, discussed issues in classrooms and with friends and family, I’ve set out yard signs and manned phone banks. I’ve done all that. And in election after election I have watched my issues and candidates go down in defeat after resounding defeat. It happens. It doesn’t mean Democracy is dead. In the case of Wisconsin it just means the Democrats have got to wrest control of their party from the Marxists, that’s all.
So I’ve seen all these defeat and yet I kept getting back up and trying again. Losing the elections was trying and tiring, it was frustrating and sometimes painful. But you get used to it. With the way the world seems to be going, the bankruptcy and stupidity of current economic theories is getting more and more obvious and people like yourself who appear to hold to those discredited models should probably get used to the pain of defeat. But don’t worry, I don’t wish you away or gone. Every idea needs foils, people and ideas that challenge and point out flaws. That’s how ideas improve. I’ve been the sandpaper for your ideas for a long time, get ready to be sandpaper to mine.