Open Thread - 09-25-26 - The Imbalance of Powers.
The three branches of government are supposed to be equal, right?
In my humble opinion, the President is too powerful, Congress is worthless, the Judiciary has stepped beyond its boundries.
And they all are as corrupt as hell.
Nowadays, fewer and fewer of the more important laws are made by Congress. They are mostly made by Presidential Executive Order.
Congress has passed much of its responsibilities to the President. Their only concern is reelection and payola. They could codify the Presidential Executive Orders, but for the most part, they pass the buck and sit on their hands. And it doesn't matter which party is in power.
It seems that the lower Federal Courts can overturn or block any Presidential edict, and they also, at times, just ignore the Supreme Court, which to me is unbelievable. They could be reined in or impeached by Congress, but again, Congress sits on their hands.
This is by design, in my humble opinion.
Legislation by Executive Order is a whipsaw used against We the People. There is no bearing on the direction of the country when it can change with the winds of an election, and by the whim of an individual. It keeps the population on its heels as there's no sense of direction when laws can change without a hint of warning. These shitheads are dangerous.
Congress controls the purse strings but their only real allegiance is their donors and handlers, and yes, the same could be said of the whole kit and kaboodle of the tripartite governance embodied by the war mongering ghouls and greedheads that we are strapped with, every election cycle. It appears like the real aspiration of a Congressperson is not the bills they bring forward, it's the moolah they accumulate, and the pork they bring home to their constituents, that completes the circle of corruption that DC is famous for. Why should they stick their necks out and legislate when they can sit on their hands and get filthy rich doing nothing. Their most important duty, the War Powers, is but a distant memory as Presidents take us to war at will, usually for unjustifiable reasons. These shitheads are worthless.
Judicial lawfare has always been with us, but this recent iteration is a bold leap from the past. Now, I do understand that this lawfare is being used to slow down an out of control Executive, but what's to stop it from happening when the Democrats attain control again? And they will. These shitheads are supposed to be impartial, not political, and that includes the Supreme Court.
How can anything get done in the future when the Executive is handcuffed by the Judiciary and Congress refuses to act? You may like that setup at the present, but you may dislike it in the future when it's flipped on its head. And please, this is not an apologia for the current administration, this is an observation of the state of current political affairs, as I see it.
We the People have the power to change it all, but how has that worked out lately? When leapfrog politics give us the a choice between dumb and dumber, or dangerous and more dangerous.
What a circus modern American politics has become.
Some day, the Executive Branch will find a way to curtail the Judicial Branch, or just ignore them, and then we'll have an even bigger problem on our hands. Congress may then step up and do its job, but I wouldn't count on it.
The Founding Fathers, in light of how the Constitution has been disregarded, would spin in their graves like a high speed auger until they shoot from the ground to start a revolution, for the second time.
Comments
Good morning Free Rangers...
again, this is not an apologia for the present Administration, it's a statement of modern American politics as I see it.
And I believe it will only get worse in the future.
The Constitution
is no longer operative. Regrettably, I think the only way that its authority can be reestablished would to start over from scratch. At this point, all of the branches have abandoned their duties to We The People, whether sworn or unsworn, and We The People can't do much about it within the bounds of the law.
The politicians in all three branches (and yes, I regard the Supremes as politicians) have come to believe that they are above and/or outside the law: that the laws simply don't apply to them. Those that might be able to enforce those laws have become co-opted by their management, who are as corrupt as the politicians who sign their paychecks and pay their kickbacks. Thus, "the law" cannot be used to correct the situation: its day has passed. Laws now only apply to those who can't buy their way out of any situation they create.
We can't vote our way out of this. I greatly fear that the only thing that will finally get the attention of these billionaire outlaws will be violence; whether from internal strife, or applied externally by other nation-states, or both. In any case, there is certain to be be a great dying.
I do not advocate violence- I abhor it. But it is becoming more and more inevitable. America is dying, and at an increasing rate. As Larry Bangor said, "The end comes hand over hand, grasping in greed." When it inevitably happens, it won't come as a shock.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Good analysis...
one point in this piece that I didn't include, and in retrospect I should have, is the fourth branch of the government, We the People, have failed the Constitution as well. We too, haven't lived up to our part of the bargain.
I'm not so ready to give up on the Constitution, as of yet. It's still one hell of a document, the best ever in my opinion. That's the part where We the People have failed, to hold the politician's feet to the fire. I believe that to be the main reason that we are not given decent leaders to vote for, a strong Constitutional leader would take us back to the letter of the law, instead we get leaders that are easily controlled and lead astray of the ideals the Constitution applies.
We the People need to break the back of the two party system, so we can loosen the deadlock they have on the poor selection of candidates that we are presented with every election. Just take a look at the quality of candidates that are running this midterm election and look at the candidates lining up for the 2028 election. It's a sham.
It's not going to be easy to overcome this predicament we find ourselves in, but how easy was it for the folks back in 1776? They did it, so could we, if We the People would only get off our asses.
We need a new party with a strong Constitutional leader, a few new amendments, and money taken out of elections, and then we might survive the coming years.
Maybe.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, brother.
From your lips
to Gawd's ear, brother. I'm in full agreement with you here.
I just wish that I could see a way for a "strong Constitutional leader" to actually make it to a general election alive- in other words, without being coopted, revealed as a cynical pandering liar, or simply killed outright by any of several preexisting goon squads. The last "constitutionalist" was revealed to be a CPL, but he smoothly talked a very convincing game, didn't he? He certainly hoodwinked me...
The most likely political entity to try to field an actual populist/constitutionalist candidate might be the Libertarians. But they, by definition, are the party of "I got mine, so fuck you", and there would be a massive credibility gap there. And the Greens, for whom I have voted for the last several cycles, have already withered on the vine.
Like I said before, the dems could make a move in the right direction, if they were an actual functioning political entity with support of We The People in mind, and if they wanted to win the upcoming general and govern effectively: simply draft and run Massie. But they aren't, and they don't, and they won't. They are too busy gorging themselves at the slop trough.
I lack the wisdom to imagine how an untainted candidate will ever be able to see the light of day.
And, as Alexander Fraser Tytler is reputed to have written:
The "Tytler cycle", writ large. The damned sad thing is that there is no evidence that Tytler actually said that. But if he did, I wish I could have had a beer with him. He sounds like a righteous bloke.
In any case, whoever it was that came up with it, if not Tytler, had it right.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
You said the name...
Thomas Massie, running on a third party ticket. If there ever was a time that a third party has a chance it is now.
But, one the other hand, I'm still not sure I totally trust him, he may be another sheep dog. I'd love for him to be the real deal, but I'm not sure at this point. He says the right things, but as you alluded to, so have others before him.
But, given the other potential candidates, I'd like to see Massie given a shot at it, so we could find out if he's he real deal or not. We may be surprised.
No matter who said it, that's a great quote, and Id like for you and I and him to have a beer together. That would be a hoot.
One thing that Tytler
really did write (with respect to democracy) goes as follows:
And here we are.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Unbalance indeed
.
Congress is useless, executive is overly aggressive and judicial plays games.
This creates a system of non-governance. It is the un-American way. We can
imagine a better way, but it will take a shattering of illusions to realize.
Thanks for the OT.
Zionism is a social disease
We need to imagine a new way...
or reimagine the old way. Either way it's going to take new conceptions to take us forward in this nascent world paradigm that's setting up right before our eyes.
This current perverted form of Constitutional governance isn't working for We the People, but it sure is working well for the shitheads that are supposed to follow the covenants laid down in that document.
But, they don't care, their caring only goes as far as their bank accounts are concerned, while ours are drained.
They all swore to follow the Constitution. Did you notice that Trump didn't put his hand on the book when he was sworn in for President? I say "the book" because it's ambiguous that the book was even a Bible.
That is just a part of the "illusions' that you spoke of.
Thanks Cap.
Good morning...
Been harvesting figs and persimmons this AM.
To follow up on last weeks conversation...I caught the Judge giving a key note on three US abominations. You and I got two of them last week, the patriot act, and the creation of the CIA. He also includes Adams Sedition Act. Pretty good speech.
(30 min) The intro was interesting but you've got to rewind a bit for that.
As to this week's essay, we lost our balance decades ago, and as ufs said above, what constitution?
Thanks for the thoughtful OT!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Agreed...
we lost the balance of powers decades ago, but, to me anyway, the thumbs on the scale have knocked it out of balance exponentially the last few administrations, due to our feckless so called leaders.
We still have a few rights left, but those are slowly being eroded, and can easily disappear in one fell swoop if we aren't vigilant. That's where We the People have failed to live up to our part of the Constitutional bargain.
That is a good speech by Napolitano, thanks for posting it.
It's always a pleasure to hear you voice from the holler, brother.
Good morning Johnny, thanks for the OT. All quite correct and
true, the "system" (a wink and a nod to Azazuello) is out of balance and out of whack. There are quibbles, of course.
The Executive cannot make laws and cannot bind the people or the other branches of government. Executive orders(short, condensed form) only apply to Federal Employees and, in essence, can only instruct them as to how to interpret and apply extent laws and the Constitution. When clowns like google change their maps to meet his proclamations they do themselves and the citizenry a disservice, only government lackeys are required to adopt the altered terminology and they should bear the burden of making their own maps, the rest of us, being not bound by any of his drivel are entitled to use real maps and MapQuest at all should provide same and ignore shit-for-brains. That doesn't matter, he will get away with whatever TPTB allow him to, and, in the end, this may come down to questions of force.
I have noted before that the country was designed and intended to be an oligarchy, with some window dressing and trappings of citizen participation to beguile us all. The advent of corporations, political parties and a national bank have all contributed to that, but those are all specific side issues warranting detailed examination that I'm not going into.
Quibbles, fwiw, are the basis of law in the US. If some matter involving a Ford F-150 comes before the courts de novo, that, upon consideration, involves a principle applicable to all motor vehicles, any less than perfectly crafted decision can and will be ignored in all cases not involving a Ford F-150 by other jurisdictions arguing that it only applies to F-150s, or Fords, or pick-up trucks, etc. The endless decisions and disputations is why our law is so vast and complex. (see, for example, "duck test" and "on all fours")
Nothing in the Constitution does, or arguably even could, bind legislators to represent the interests of those who elected them. Similarly, nothing requires any of them to be "true statesmen".
Generally, all of that "checks and balances" shit had (and has) nothing to do with the people. Consider, if you will, (heh) a loose confederacy of independent self-governing states with competing interests and economies attempting to form a coalition for mutual and group self-defense, protecting each first and foremost from outsiders, but, within that orbit, also from each other and from their own citizenry. No fear or favor for any state, limited coercion of any state, restricted taxation except for supporting truly common interests and preventing any usurpation of any material amount of power or authority by the hoi polloi. It is that which drove the checks and balances, which is why, among other things, both California and Rhode Island are allotted two senators.
On a personal note, my spouse returns from a week's absence today, so the house must be rendered vaguely ship-shape AND my infusion today has been scheduled to start at noon, so I won't be around much.
Everybody have a great weekend
be well and have a good one
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Good morning, mi hermano...
muchas gracias for the further refining of some of the systemic "quibbles" inherent to Constitution. I have no argument with any of it.
The only thing I have to offer is that the centralized federal government has become all too powerful, and that was a big concern of the founding fathers. They use their power like a bludgeon to keep the states, and ultimately us, in line with their ever increasing quest for money and power. That's another balance that shifted power due to the events of 1861-1865.
And I'll add, IMHO, that if we ever do fully lose the Constitution, we'll see states seceding and a possible partitioning of the US.
Better get your butt in gear, posthaste, before your spouse gets home, that's another balance of power that needs some juggling, despite a few quibbles. Don't ask me how I know. LOL!
A possible wrench in the machinery just occurred to me
Since CA and RI are both allotted 2 reps, regardless of population,
why not establish many new states? TA = Texarkana, VADC = Virginia
and DC, CNM = CO and NM, ORID = OR and ID, ETC. We could have 80
states overnight. The splintering may take a bit doing, but it would sure add
some needed life blood to the present system of representation.
Zionism is a social disease
It would "add some needed life blood...
to the present system of representation", but it would have to be carefully done to not tip the electoral college balance in favor of one party or the other.
So far, divided government, where congress is split between the two parties, seems to work the best to hold the powers in check.
An uneven addition of new states could upset that check of power in favor of one party, forever.
Do not see why it has to be necessarily partisan
if TXARK was already blue, how does that change?
Guess I'm pulling more for regionalization of interests
as I have been for years. Shake loose the grip of fed
control in general. Already built into the constitution.
Zionism is a social disease
If additional states...
were added in an unbalanced manner it would tip the scales. If all added states were all blue states that would tip the scales in their favor, as would all added states being red. It would have to be additional states added across the board evenly, which would make the whole point moot.
Unless I'm misinterpreting your point.
So change the color
all new states are green.
Zionism is a social disease
Let me say it this way...
I go back to your original comment in this sub-thread:
I disagree. Instead of more representation, we need better representation.
Great stuff here
Very true in so many ways. I can't blame the people too much. Since the 70's our lives have been eroded by the people we elect, usually behind the curtains. We do what the civics classes say we need to do, we get our "I voted" stickers and listen to the supposed 4th branch of government, the press. So concerned, so respectfully non partisan, so uninformative.
We are knee deep in generations of sheepdog hair. At this point it seems a third party is the only option, if the supreme court allows it. Ah, the supreme court. Hard to make somebody see something when their paycheck depends on them looking away.
So, so true...
And you're right, the press is considered the fourth branch of government and my assertion "We the People" would be the fifth.
Which brings up an excellent point, the press. A fair and balanced press went out the window in 1987 when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 4-0 to abolish the Fairness Doctrine. Now it's propaganda and brainwashing all day, every day. Another brick in the wall of a imbalanced governance.
Thanks for another great comment, my brother.