Lawlessness — reblog from Dehavelle.Com

fatter_disasterIn addition to reading Keith DeHavelle‘s  post, I think it might be a good idea to listen to that MP3 file.

One commenter suggested that the problem with current immigration law is that Congress has not been forced to act. I didn’t quite agree:

Current law enacted by Congress handles immigration reasonably well. It certainly prevents the current crisis. Except that it didn’t:

Current law is being ignored by President Obama. Immigration law has been long superseded by whim, by practice, and ultimately by unconstitutional executive branch regulations. They’re not even executive orders, and they are now being implemented in defiance of explicit court order.

Replacing the law with new law will not solve this — any law that would pass the current Congress and be signed by Obama would be one that fig-leafs his actions, and any part of it he found inconvenient he would ignore as he does now.

Constitutional scholars on the left and right agree, amazingly, that Obama’s lawless behavior has created the greatest challenge to the American governance system ever. I’ve been listening to Constitutional law debates.Here’s an MP3 from the Constitutional Law Center that is on point. One of the debaters is a prominent (left-leaning) scholar, but whose vocal style is rather tedious to listen to. Nevertheless, though he describes Obama as a centrist, he (like his debate opponent) recognizes Obama’s actions as creating a great Constitutional crisis. (continued here)

Why are tyrants destroying our county? We don’t care enough about our neighbors. We when don’t care enough about our neighbors, unscrupulous men and women can buy our votes. They can entice us with fine sounding words like: “it’s for the children,” “entitlements,” “social security,” “right to healthcare,” and so forth. But it is not government’s job to love and care for us. We must do that for each other. All our government is suppose to do is help us to secure each others rights. When we try to give our leaders more to do than protecting our rights, we give them more power than mere men and women can resist.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Lawlessness — reblog from Dehavelle.Com

  1. I really like DeHavelle’s point re: we need to eliminate the drive to be re-electable, and all the ensuing financial and ethical problems, and forever destroy the myth that serving in Congress or in the executive branch requires some sort of super ability. Just not so.

    Like

    1. Our congressmen lack for many things. The most of important thing they lack is honor. Unfortunately, we elected them. So their dishonorable character reflects the character of this country. That is not something DeHavelle address. However, his proposal does address an important point. One thing our congressmen lack these days is the experience of having to live under the laws they create. They lack the day-to-day experience of being ordinary citizens. Term limits would address that, but there is a problem. Our congressmen will never term limit themselves.

      Because the men and women we have elected to Congress will never reduce their own power, we need an Article V convention of the states.

      Like

        1. The state legislators would be limiting the terms of our congressmen, not their own terms. Our state legislators would be increasing their own power at the expense of the power of the Federal Government.

          As citizens of a republic, how do we remain free? The people who founded this nation thought the key was dividing the power of government among many different institutions. The people who founded this nation thought that we should respond to the tendency of our leaders to divide us by pitting us against each other by creating a system that pitted them against each other.

          For the sake of the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the founders sacrificed any prospect of an efficient government. For the sake of prosperity, they limited the size of government.

          Like

        2. All that is true, yet state legislators are also in line for chances at being considered for “promotion” to a Federal slot, thus may be tempted to go slow on curbing “the varsity”. Or going against party (and by that I mean potential financial supporters) interests. It’s complicated.

          Like

    2. A modest proposal: select Congressmen from the voter rolls at random. They would only run for re-election so that the voters would have the option of returning them if they were doing a good job. After a second elected term, they would return to our midst, as Cincinnatus returned to his plough.

      Like

      1. It could work.

        Any system of government can be made to work. What matters is the character of the people and how they restrict the their government’s powers. When we take responsibility for doing what we should be doing ourselves instead of trying to palm those responsibilities off onto politicians, even a king can be trusted (at least to some extent).

        As it is, even though its structure is relatively well conceived, our republic is not working well. That’s because we cannot be trusted to obey the rules that make it work.

        Like

      2. Not from the voter rolls per se, but maybe draw the name from a pool of voters in the district volunteering to stand for that office? No campaigning involved. I like that for the House.

        Like

        1. Given the nature of people who would volunteer….. If we would seriously consider picking our congressmen at random, we must be doing an awful job of electing our representatives.

          Like

        2. Well, we are. But also you might be amazed at the quality of people who volunteer for serious community functions. I’ve known a couple of thousand, and 90% of them would do well in Congress, I believe.

          Like

        3. I would not call you naive. Except for praying and trying to do the right thing, I don’t know what to do. Objectively, our republic is not working, and things are just getting worst. I really did not expect Obama to get elected a second time, but he did. People I think should have known better supported him.

          If the problem was just Obama and a passing fancy with skilled con man, I would not have been so appalled by his reelection. Unfortunately, most of the people we have in Congress cannot be trusted either. These people just tax, spend, and rip us off. When that sort of leader is the norm, there is little doubt voters lack sufficient wisdom to elect decent leadership. Hence scout’s proposal sounds attractive, but the problem arises from is a lack of wisdom in the voter, and scout’s proposal does not fix that.

          Consider. If the average would elect a rotten congressman, what is the likelihood that the average voter would be rotten congressman?

          Like

      3. In heavily Democrat districts, you may have to run the random process more than once to find a voter who is real and still alive.

        I have proposed that no one at the federal level can “run for re-election” although they could do so after an interval of a few years. This situation sort of naturally existed during the decades following the formation of the country; the great majority of politicians completed only a single term.

        The issue is the effect of financial and political incentives applied to folks in office. I don’t like the random selection aspect, as there is no opportunity for the people to select their representatives — and a random person might or might not feel a duty to represent his sudden constituents.

        We should be able to pick someone we want. And then, in two years, do so again, allowing the short-term representative to “return to his plough.”

        In the meantime, the states should be able to be represented at the federal level as well, something the progressives ended a century ago. Now, in both houses, we have career politicians and cronyism instead of representation, but we pay an astoundingly high price — and not just money — for this dubious privilege.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Love that first line. Just wish it were not so true.

          The problem is getting term limits pass our Congress. An Article V Convention is the only way it will get done.

          Like

  2. novascout

    The people who “volunteer” to run for office often don’t win any prizes either, Tom. There are a number of politicians even at the national level who have done nothing else with their lives except seek office. I generally take that as a sign that they see political office as a career, and have no other life skills with which to earn a living or contribute to society.

    Scout

    Like

  3. Pingback: My Article Read (6-11-2015) | My Daily Musing

Comments are closed.