Let's go back to the 1700's. America has won its war with Britain. The young upstart nation had rebelled against the most powerful king and empire in the world and turned the world upside down. (As a matter of fact, that's the song the British band played when its soldiers marched out to surrender to the Americans, "The World Turned Upside Down.")
TIME FOR THE QUILL
Now came the serious business of writing the Constitution and getting the states to approve it. As the document developed, there was one great fear among the delegates writing it--what to do with the office of the President, the Executive branch of the government? What will his powers be, what can he do and not do, constitutionally?
The delegates were reacting to the British monarchy and all monarchies throughout history--they emphatically did not want the President to be an American king. They knew that King George III had extensive power--the power to declare war, the power to declare peace. They also didn't want to grant the President legislative powers, the power to make laws. That would be too, too much.
LISTENING IN
if we'd been there to hear their deliberations, we would have heard Edmund Randolph put it bluntly: "The Executive Branch is the fetus of the monarchy." We would listen as James Iredell of North Carolina, said, "The President has not the power of declaring war by his own authority, nor that of raising fleets or armies."
When it came to giving the president the power of the veto, James Madison thought that the president should only veto legislation that was unconstitutional or use the veto to protect the Executive Branch from the Legislative Branch. His veto power shouldn't be used just because he didn't like a bill or because one group or another didn'P like it.
Those men are my bons amis. Our Founders were afraid of the office of the President. But let's listen to a man who rarely spoke at the Constitutional Convention: Benjamin Franklin. He only rose to speak on two occasions, and one of those two had to do with his fear of the presidency. He said, "The executive will always be increasing here, as elsewhere, till it ends in a monarchy."
Had Franklin read the Bible or history? Or both? They both say the same thing. In warning about a monarchy, Samuel the prophet cautioned Israel:
He said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants."
The venerable prophet is saying, "This is what rulers do. They take more and more power, more and more of your money, more and more of your children for themselves and their friends. Even the best of rulers will do that. (Think of David, the best king ever, who so abused the powers of the king, he took a woman and then he took her husband's life. After all, he was THE KING.)
The presidency has more power today than our Founders ever imagined. From NBC News: "President Truman's decision in 1950 to order U.S. air and naval forces into
Korea has been cited as a precedent for a president initiating overseas
military action without first seeking Congressional authorization."
"In fact, World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal
declaration of war. . . the Constitution is explicit in
requiring a formal declaration by Congress, not the President." (George Friedman, "Geopolitical Weekly," March 2011). And that power is not shared with anyone.
CASTRO'S CUBA We have no farther to look than 90 miles from Florida and Castro's Cuba. It wouldn't surprise you to learn that in the last four years, Castro's regime has arrested more than 10,000 Cubans for their opposition to his policies, most of those are newspaper editors and politically powerful people who have opposed what he's doing. When Cubans vote, he sends troops to polling places across the country and has allowed some to vote illegally. His regime has stuffed ballot boxes and forced any who dare oppose him to take a loyalty oath before voting. He's ordered his army to arrest and disarm Cuban citizens for suspected disloyal activities. If anyone dares to wear or display any logo which opposes his policies, he has them arrested and disarmed. Free speech? Ha! SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE! As you read the above about Castro, you were probably thinking, "What else is new? That's old news, let's move on." But what you don't know is that I switched the name of the real perpetrator of the above illegal activities. Castro does do those things, but he's not the one I was talking about. I took out the real name and put Castro's in its place. The real name? President Abraham Lincoln during1861-1865. Dr. Brion McCalanahan wrties, "Our Founders would be aghast at such a President as Abraham Lincoln. "How could he do such a thing," you ask. The answer is, "He just did." Our Founders, would have been disgusted by such a President's abuse of power. The powers accruing to the office of the President have been steadily progressing over the years until we have what we have today.
YOU'RE SAYING?
Certainly, the Israel of Samuel isn't America and isn't the church, but human nature is the same everywhere you find it, in America or Israel, or the church, in any age you find it--leaders within them always craving power, more and more power. So much power has devolved on the American presidency that, no matter who's in office, my candidate or yours, he has too much of it, which makes him a person to be feared. As our Founder's knew, if a President can act contrary to one article of the Constitution, why can he not act against any other article? If he can create legislation by executive order, why can he not take away liberty, life, and property by executive order?
No matter who's in office, he has too much power and, because of his nature, will seek more.
Should you and I not fear such a person, no matter who he is? Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison did.
|
AxmTYklsjo190QW
AxmTYklsjo190QW
No comments:
Post a Comment