CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

The American Constitution was created to establish a new form of government that would protect the people from large, intrusive government. One of the major themes of the Constitution, and the major theme of the Bill of Rights, is to limit the power of government. The Founding Fathers built a structure that is supported by a three legged foundation. The three legs are the executive leg, the legislative leg, and the judicial leg; these are what is traditionally referred to a the system of checks and balances.

The system of checks and balances is further counterbalanced by the tension, or supposed tension, between the state’s power and the Federal government’s power; but the biggest check and balance of them all was “We the People.” An informed electorate was integrated into every letter and every word of the constitution. The ultimate check and balance was to be an educated and informed electorate.

Now there is no doubt that the state have abdicated their role in constraining the excesses of the Federal government; and no doubt the legislative branch has been a heartfelt disappointment; likewise the judiciary has relinquished is role as interpreter of the law and assumed the role of judicial legislature; and executive power has increased un-proportionally as the federal government’s power increased with the passage of the 16th amendment. But by far the biggest failure of American Constitutional Government is the abject failure of the people to educate themselves in the art of self government and to inform themselves concerning the important issues of the day. The catastrophic failure of America is in short: APATHY. 

I routinely talk to people who know literally know nothing about current events; they know know nothing about civics; know nothing about the sorry state of out judiciary; the sorry state our legislature; the sorry state of our economy; the sorry state of our freedoms; or the sorry state of our future. Most citizens don’t even vote or register to vote. They have relinquished their solemn right to vote; and most who do vote have spent little or no time to educate themselves about the issues. They willing are duped by political slogans; they willingly allow themselves to be lied to in the most blatant way because they are clueless to the reality of the situation; they willingly vote for candidates that are ideologically and economically against their interests but they are confused and unable to discern the truth; they willingly profess one set of beliefs yet vote for politicians that hold a completely opposite view; they fail to prioritize their values and vote for candidates that are enemies of their most cherished beliefs; they lackadaisically allow parties to nominate candidates who don’t represent their main stream moral standards.

As a result we are taxed out of our wealth; we are regulated to death by an incompetent and idiotic bureaucracy who fails at everything they attempt; We pay bureaucrats and politicians excessive salaries and benefits that have bankrupted us; we allow private bankers to create money and drive our economy into crisis and failure; we allow our education system to become the laughing stock of the world; we allow our public colleges and universities to become an inane septic system of politically correct non sense; we allow our children to be killed in government supported death clinics; we allow our God to be expelled from our schools, our public discourse, and our children’s minds; and we allow a vast army of unelected and unaccountable bureaucratic elites to rule over us with the iron fist of law without any checks or balances on their power.

As we examine all but one of the candidates running for the presidency from both parties, we see a cadre of big government Washington oligarchs who will continue the policies of failure and bankruptcy that are quickly destroying America. The one constitutional candidate, Ron Paul, who speaks for the constitution, freedom, and economic prosperity is exposed to contumely and derision by the purveyors of the current belt way oligopoly.

Edmund Burke said, “All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” We the people have failed our constitution, ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and mankind by allowing our government to be hijacked by a new form of tyrannical federal monarchy run by big government Kings, Queens, Princes, Dukes, and Duchesses. If we don’t take our government back soon it will take a violent revolution to re-establish our liberty again.

It’s time to stop being apathetic; it’s time to retake our constitution; it’s time to revolutionize America with a return to our first principles; it’s time “We the People…in order to…establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity, (to re-ordain) and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.”

Please leave a review.

Please visit our other blogs at http://evergreencoloradoliving.com/evergreencoloradorealestate/

And www.evergreenrealestate.org

How We can Solve the Economic Crisis

1 place President Obama, Speaker-To-Be John Boehner, Congressman Paul Ryan, or Sarah Palin could turn to for wisdom to the current dollar crisis will be the editorials from the Ny Instances. Not the editorials of these days, but those that have been issued in the course of the mid-1940s, in the event the nations about to turn out to be victorious in Globe Struggle II have been meeting at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to lay the groundwork for any post-war monetary program. The Times issued editorial after editorial important of the Bretton Woods negotiations and their architect, John Maynard Keynes. It turns out that the editorials had been the work of the solitary, prophetic editorial writer, Henry Hazlitt.

Hazlitt warned that what was being set up at Bretton Woods was an inflation trap. He turned out to get correct, as well as the system unraveled in 1971, when President Nixon closed the gold window. Bretton Woods unraveled around what, in retrospect, seems a modest drop in the value of the greenback – one thing like 10% – to a 38th of an oz. of gold from the 35th that obtained below Bretton Woods. This ushered monetary arrangements that, under the leadership of President Reagan and the Fed chairman at the time, Paul Volcker, proved serviceable for any although but is turning out to be inadequate in an era of lesser leaders.

No doubt Hazlitt, had he lived, would have stated the failure was inevitable. His warnings inside the Ny Instances stand as a single of the excellent scoops in all of newspapering. The oeuvre is anthologized inside a book that Hazlitt himself put together called “From Bretton Woods To Globe Inflation.” Issued in 1984, it consists of a lot more than twenty of his editorials in the Instances, most of them in the 1940s, but starting with 1 from the 1934, called “The Return to Gold,” which contains a warning that couldn’t be more relevant to today’s debate in the event the G20 is feuding over the prospect of competitive devaluations:

“There is no more a ‘natural value’ for an irredeemable foreign money than there’s for a promissory note of the particular person of uncertain intentions to pay for an undisclosed sum at an unspecified date. Finally, it’s been learned that aggressive depreciation, unlike ambitious armaments, is a game that no Government is simply too poor or too weak to play, and that it can result in nothing but general demoralization.” Later, he warned, through an editorial in the Occasions: “The Greatest single contribution the United States could make to globe foreign money stability after the warfare is to announce its determination to stabilize its personal forex.”

An additional memorable 1 of Hazlitt’s editorials from the Occasions, from February 1945, is known as “Supply Creates Demand.” It cautioned against the fallacy that we could be “saved from disaster after the struggle only by a continuation of huge Authorities spending and deficit financing.” The fallacy was based around the notion that “purchasing power” must be kept above “production.” Hazlitt cautioned that would lead to the “crude inflationary theory that we are able to maintain gong right after the warfare only through the procedure of constantly increasing funds payments regardless of production.” Does this sound familiar?

The Hazlitt compendium also consists of a celebrated editorial called “Gold vs. Nationalism,” which was issued in the Times on March 17, 1945. It sketched 1 from the renowned paradoxes, which is that agreements like Bretton Woods, which seem, on the face of it, to become archetypes of multi-nationalism are actually the reverse. The real trans-national concept of the solitary normal to which all nations could, or couldn’t, repair is gold. The opposite, the recipe for strife, was a “system beneath which each nation individually could be free of charge to allow whatever unsound policies it wished, although the nations collectively would must bail it out with the difficulties into which it fell as a consequence.” Greece couldn’t have place it better.

* * *

Years later, Hazlitt himself was asked, in an interview through the Austrian Economics Newsletter, why he thought the editorials didn’t have more impact. Quoth he:

“As you’ll bear in mind the guiding spirit at that conference was John Maynard Keynes. The delegates were generating inflationary selections every single day. I was tirelessly pointing out that these selections had been inflationary. Nobody else seemed to be pointing this out and no person paid any attention to what I was saying. Actually, I feel an awful lot of folks had been astonished that the brand new York Times was taking this strange eccentric position. In the event the 43 nations represented all signed the settlement adopting the Bretton Woods program, Arthur Sulzberger, then publisher of the Instances, known as me into his workplace and stated, ‘Look, Henry, I’ve been letting you write these things, although I had misgivings about them, but now that 43 nations have agreed to accept the agreement, I don’t see how the Instances can proceed to oppose it.’ I replied, ‘Mr. Sulzberger, if you feel that way, I can’t continue to publish any more editorials inside the New york Times around the agreement; I think it’s as well harmful.’”

The Occasions has stuck with the Keynesian errors all the way up through Professor Krugman, and it has been by no means alone in its willingness to swing behind Bretton Woods. But it has left, within the oeuvre of Hazlitt’s editorials, a record that will repay a pay a visit to through the politicians of today, in the event the greenback – which beneath Bretton Woods was really worth a 35th of an oz of gold – is really worth less than a 1,400th of an ounce of gold and when the 20 leading countries with the world are in disarray and when a new generation of politicians is rising inside a new Congress that will be looking for a way forward.

This post and its author proudly support the Campaign For Liberty. You are able to support Campaign For Liberty by buying a Rearden Bracelet