Beyond the Consent of the Governed

Beyond the Consent of the Governed

A cursory look at the political discourse in America today reveals a somewhat diminished attitude toward the relevance of one of our most esteemed founding documents.  Yes, the Declaration of Independence – that boldest of manifestos that forever changed the course of history for good – appears to have lost its significance in the dialogue of our national government today.  And, that makes perfect sense.  For the collaborative document, spearheaded by Thomas Jefferson, is provocative and dangerous.  Its ideals are dangerous to statism and the status quo that would perpetuate the growth toward an all-powerful State.  Is it any wonder that the Declaration is treated with passing, even grudging acknowledgment in our public schools at best?  Since the intent of the document was to serve as a notice to the British Crown that the colonies had declared their independence, historians of late have taken to denigrate its place in American political discussion.  The Declaration, they say, has no binding legal authority.  As such, they proceed to eschew the foundational principles from which the authors wrote.  This, in the statist war plan, is but one gateway into delegitimizing not only the Declaration, but the Constitution of the United States and entire concept of negative liberties.  If nothing else, the statist is embarrassed that Jefferson and his fellow writers actually declare that the rights of Man are authored by God, and not by Man himself.

It appears as though the forces of individual liberty and those of statism are rushing toward an ideological showdown the likes of which have not been witnessed in modern history.  The palpability of disgust with the current state of our government is undeniable.  Progressives, discontented with the pace of entitlement spending increases, lash out at corporate America as the impediment to egalitarian wealth distribution.  The manifestation of their dissatisfaction has its focus in the “Occupy” movements, which look to reformulate with the onset of spring.  For those espousing liberty, their release valve has been the measured, organic, yet impassioned display of dissatisfaction as represented by the Tea Party movement.  The active assemblages of thoughtful patriotic Americans who momentarily abandon their stores, shops, professional practices and other small businesses to attend gatherings of like-minded citizens is unprecedented in the modern era.  All walks of life are represented in this movement, yet are united in a singular purpose – to give gentle warning to the national government that it is on the same path of overbearance the Crown was 236 years before.

Read for the first time, or re-read the grievances the Colonists had against the Crown.  Egregious as they were, especially in their time, do they not begin to pale in the light of what Americans experience from their government today?  Furthermore, do not some of the offenses by King George III resemble offenses meted out by the current presidential administration?  A brief examination of a few of the complaints against the Crown shows some startling similarities with abuses today:

·        He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.  Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 are hotly debated even now.  In these sections, the administration has effectively nullified Constitutional protections afforded American citizens and lawful aliens under the 5^th, 6^th 7^th, and 14^th Amendments.  Furthermore, the 2012 NDAA displaces the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which has long insulated state and local governments from the potential abuses of federal military intervention.

·        For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 is perhaps the most visible and demagogic expression of taxation against the will of the American people to date.  With a complicit Congress whose temporary majorities consisted of his party in both houses, the Obama Administration brazenly forced the vote and execution of this act without promised adequate time for legislative deliberation or inspection.  In it, Obama has effectively imposed upon an unwilling populace an onerous tax for an unwanted and decidedly unconstitutional government service.  Now estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $1.76 trillion over ten years, as posted in an article from the Washington Examiner (3/14/2012), as opposed to an originally stated $900 billion when the case for PPACA was made, this one dreadful law best exemplifies the hubristic arrogance of the national government.  Many more acts of improper governmental expenditure of which necessarily result in additional taxation of the citizens are laced throughout the over three-year tenure of this rogue president.

·        For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

(see:  above)

·        For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

Here, we see another stark parallel between the actions of the Crown and our current president.  With South Carolina as a precursor, and Texas as the most recent victim, this administration under the unjust imposition of provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, has brutishly overridden the expressed wishes of the voters of two (and probable future) sovereign states with regard to their election laws.  In violation of at least the spirit of Amendments 9 & 10 of the U.S. Constitution, Attorney General Eric Holder has imposed federal government will over the will of the voters of these individual states.

·        He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the worst barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.

While Jefferson et al. refer to King George III and his importation of soldiers to the American colonies in this instance, a definite comparison can be here as well.  There is growing alarm that crosses ideological and political boundaries regarding the foreign adventurism pursued by the Obama Administration.  As American military assets were afforded to NATO and Arab League entities in the direct assistance of Libyan rebels in 2011, so too we see the specter of a repeat of this supra-constitutional with the internal affairs of the nation of Syria.  Whereas American military operations beginning in 2003 in Iraq and Afghanistan arguably were directly linked to national security interests, no case whatsoever has been made for the adventures into Libya and Syria.  Furthermore, the constitutionally-attributed law ascribing war-making powers to Congress in Article I, Section 8 is totally ignored in unprecedented fashion.  Even more startling is the administration’s refusal to consider deference to the 1973 War Powers Resolution – drafted by Obama’s own party – in this matter.  Jed Babbin, writing for "The American Spectator" (3/12/2012) illuminated the attitude of sheer disregard for any role of Congress, even in advising or consenting, in the commitment of U.S. military forces in overseas operations by this administration.  As far as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is concerned, the administration has no real obligation to seek the consent of Congress, even while it responds to the requests of foreign governments and foreign organizations.

The restrictions of a single essay prohibit discussion on the voluminous departures from observance of constitutional constraints by the current occupants of the Executive Branch.  The overwhelming numbers of aggressions against civil liberties and intrusions into the affairs of American corporations in the name of good governance truly require a far more serious work than can be offered here.  What I hoped to identify, if only superficially, is an ever growing usurpation of constitutional law and the erosion of personal freedoms that law is designed to protect.  Barack Obama, in his clouded but recorded past, has shown a consistent propensity toward the avocation of tyranny.  The documented sources tying him and his supporters to a collectivistic and statist philosophy are many and solid.  His rise to ultimate executive power is most curious, then, when we examine his attitudes toward individual liberty against the backdrop of a culture that, until recently, has always favored the Individual over the State.

However, what’s done is done.  November 6, 2012 offers one more opportunity to allow the electoral process to correct mistakes of the past.  For now, though, we are right to consider more relevant thoughts from the framers of the Declaration:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for redress in the most humble terms:  Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.  A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.

It would do well for the current occupant of the White House to consider the same.