"How Democracy Ends"

The Intercept recently posted a brilliant piece by Murtaza Hussain titled, "Democracy Dies in the Blinding Light of Day".  It's a commentary and review of Professor David Runciman's new book, How Democracy Ends.

Due to time constraints, I can give only a brief, inadequate summary of the hypothesis, as follows.  Instead of Orwell's 1984 or Animal Farm, Runciman makes a very good argument for the ending of democracy via Huxley's Brave New World, in which Technology smothers democracy in a manner barely noticeable.  There's plenty of past and present evidence supporting that premise.  See Hussain's article.

My only criticism (though not much of one) of Mr. Hussain's piece is this---
He cites John Adams, one of our Founders and the second President of the USA, as not favoring democracy.  Adams:  "There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.".  That is what Adams said, but there's more to the story.  The fact is, the majority of our Founders expressed a palpable disdain for democracy.  They were against that form of government for our new country.  See the second paragraph here---
http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/2016/11/latest-count-clinton-has-395000-more.html
In other words, it wasn't only Adams who didn't want democracy for the USA.

This country never has been a democracy.  Elections don't make it so.  That people believe the exact opposite is a testament to the power of Edward Bernays style Propaganda.  This Land's government is a Plutocracy, and it always has been.  Without question, History supports that contention.  It took me decades to come to that conclusion.  C'est la vie.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Trump---the Fake Rebel

Trump is (& has been) up to something; WHAT is not clear.  His actions can't just be chalked up to "he's a rebel politician".  Being petty, petulant, paranoid, ignorant, unprofessional, reckless, & immature (the way Trump is) never would serve a rebel well.  Something else is going on.

I certainly don't know, but maybe it's one or more of the following:

1.  he's using his office to further enrich himself; or,

2.  it's all a ploy to get Pence in as President; or,

3.  Trump is angling to repay the Bankers who bailed him out years ago; or,

4.  he really is an ignorant, petty, empty suit; or,

5.  he's mentally ill, or becoming senile; or,

6.  some combination of the above.

Most of the people of the world must be laughing themselves silly because of us having such a buffoon as our "leader".  Or, perhaps they're crying because he's so ignorant and dangerous.  Donald Trump has to be the most incompetent, ignorant, rude, and downright dangerous President this country ever has had.

The fact that he got elected really is a testament to how desperate Americans were for a change in the status quo.  His Fascist idiocy never would have been supported under normal circumstances.  The Corporatist Coup in this Land (ongoing with every Administration since 1981) is now complete.

Jefferson and Madison (both of whom were Elites) warned us way back at the beginning of our Gov't that this very thing was likely to happen...unless we remained vigilant.  We didn't remain so.  Our Founders are turning in their graves.  The Republic of the USA now exists totally in name only.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Latest Count: Clinton Has 395,000 More Votes Than Trump

Her lead is up from 225,000... and all the votes still have not yet been counted.  Welcome to American "democracy".  We can stick our heads in the sand and ignore this (again), or we can work to change our electoral system.  It would be helpful if we all stopped drinking the Edward Bernays style Propaganda Kool Aid.

Long ago, James Madison said that the opulence of the wealthy must be protected from the majority.  He also stated that democracy is the most vile form of government.  John Jay, also a signer of the Constitution and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, stated that those who own the country (property owners) should rule it.  Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.  Other Founders referred to the tyranny of the majority.  Benjamin Rush, one of our Founders, said that a simple democracy is the devil's own government.  John Adams, the second U.S. President, claimed democracy soon degenerates into an anarchy.  Gouverneur Morris, the writer of the Final Draft of the Constitution, stated that the tumults of democracy terminate in despotism.  Fisher Ames, the framer of the 1st Amendement to the Constitution, claimed that democracy is the most violent of despotisms.  Even the respected Thomas Jefferson said that democracy is mob rule.  Long story short--- our Founders were against having democracy as our form of gov't.  They succeeded in that quest.

Despite the above, our current/recent leaders at the highest levels keep referring to "our democracy".  They rarely ever refer to our form of government by its proper name, our Republic.  The two types of gov't are not the same.  We don't have a democracy in the USA.  We've never had one.  Most other developed countries do have a democracy...and they haven't devolved into anarchy, or tyranny, or mob rule.  What they have done is a better job of protecting the majority from the Super-Rich... a better job of it than our gov't has done.

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Here's How They Do It -OR- The Biggest Flaw in the Constitution

"They" are the Neoliberals who over decades and by sheer, disorganized, dumb luck have brought about a coup in our Government.  For years I wondered how so many unconstitutional laws could come into being in this Land with barely a peep of protest from anyone.  I think perhaps finally I've figured it out.  Over the years, now and again, I heard this-or-that politician mention the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution; but I never paid much attention to it until recently.

"The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
~ Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, United States Constitution

The Powers mentioned in that clause, "...the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers...", are those delegated by We the People to our Federal Government.  They are the Enumerated Powers that we have given to the Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch.  The Government has only those Powers.  Unfortunately, going all the way back to our Founding Fathers, some have claimed that Article I Section 8 Clause 18 gives other, implied Powers to the Government.  Hamilton and Jefferson debated that very point.

Alexander Hamilton was the Founder who proposed that our Gov't should be that of a Monarchy; he wanted a King as our leader.  Luckily, that idea quickly was scrapped.  Nonetheless, Hamilton kept fighting for a central government bordering on dictatorial.  He wanted a central bank, and he claimed that Article I Section 8 Clause 18 gave the Gov't implied Powers.  Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends, regardless of specific Enumerated Powers.  Jefferson opposed him at every turn until Hamilton was killed by Aaron Burr in a duel, July, 1804.  Nevertheless, the seed had been planted.  Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall and others promoted the idea that the Government had implied powers.  At times, the "necessary and proper" clause was referred to as the "elastic clause".

The idea eventually lost favor in the late 1800s up until the 1930s.  With the Roosevelt Administration, the "elastic clause" was back in favor... and as the Fed Gov't expanded, the idea became more and more the flavor of the day.  As that happened, "Legislative Absolutism" took hold more and more.  In 1901, Supreme Court Justice Harlan coined that term, warning of a time when unconstitutional laws would be passed as a matter of course.

Any examination of the "necessary and proper" clause with a view toward common sense tells us that no additional Powers are implied by it.  Furthermore, it makes ZERO sense that so-called "implied" powers would be able to result in a law which would essentially nullify any specific written clause in the Supreme Law of the Land.  Finally, the use of "implied" powers apparently is virtually without limits.  It's whatever an indoctrinated, propagandized public will tolerate.

EXAMPLE---  The so-called PATRIOT Act essentially nullifies the Fourth Amendment.  Gathering of bulk data is permitted... without the people being intruded upon having to be suspects of any kind.  In addition, FBI Agents can write their own Search Warrants... the Fourth Amendment makes it clear that judges must issue those.  Finally, other portions of the Act violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.  [So do portions of the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA.]

All the "necessary and proper" clause is saying is this:  Congress can pass Laws in order to implement the specific Enumerated Powers that were delegated to them by We the People.  Nowhere does it say or imply that Laws contravening the Constitution may also be passed.  Only an attorney with no common sense would infer such a thing from that clause.  Both Hamilton and Marshall were attorneys.  [My admittedly limited experience with attorneys tells me that very few of them have any common sense whatsoever.  They appear to live in a very esoteric world; as with everything, I'm sure there are exceptions.]

My conclusion is that certain people in our political history wanted a way around the constraints of the Constitution.  It appears they desired a central government so strong that it bordered on dictatorial.  To achieve that objective, they inferred from primarily the "necessary and proper" clause, but also from the "commerce" and "general welfare" clauses, so-called implied powers.  I see that as pure BS.  I sincerely doubt that it was the intention of almost all our Founders to give the Government unknown, virtually unlimited Powers that could, in fact, contravene the listed or Enumerated Powers delegated by We the People.  That makes no sense... and more importantly, it makes the Constitution worthless.  The primary purpose of the Constitution is to restrain/constrain government; that's not possible if we accept the concept of "implied powers"... which can be almost anything.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well
p.s.  Special thanks to my good friend in Sacramento, Bob, for triggering the theme of this piece.