Michigan Proposes Monarchy
Mar 14, 2011 Political
Apparently the leaders in the state of Michigan have had enough of this damnable “representative” government and have decided to do something about it. It appears that next week they will abolish the representative form of government and replace it with a new form — I guess I’d call it an “elected monarchy.” I’m not sure what term to use for a system of government in which one person is elected, but then appoints someone else who has the power to remove duly elected officials.
Oh sure, it’s not called that. And it’s “for the children” or some such claptrap. And it’s only “for emergencies.” But hey, I’m sure it’s legal, because under our current system of government, any decision made by the legislature is automatically legal, appropriate, and good. After all, they’re so much smarter than everyone else. This just seems like a logical extension — when the people, in their ignorance, select someone they shouldn’t, this new “emergency financial manager” could simply get rid of the elected official, because he’s so much smarter than the people who vote.
Amazingly, this is one of the very few times in which I believe the federal government should step in: Article IV, Section 4:
Section 4 – Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Whoops. Sorry. I was thinking the Constitution was the law of the land. I know, I’m dreaming again.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: inancial crisis, michigan, monarchy
How We Move Toward Socialism
Jan 16, 2009 Political
What do Socialist countries have in common?
They have leaders who are “elected” time and again and basically serve for life. Hugo Chavez is a good example as was Saddam Hussein. The election results in those countries usually come in with an unusually high percentage for the dear leader. Those who voted for others might never be heard from again…
The United States did not have term limits for the president until 1951 when the 22nd Amendment was ratified. Up until that time presidents served two terms in order to prevent a monarchy type system where one person ruled forever. Franklin Roosevelt was elected to 4 terms and died a few months into his fourth term. Many cite his popularity and World War II as the reason for his continuation past two terms.
Two terms was an unwritten rule that many believe George Washington instituted by deciding not to run after his second though many scholars say he decided not to run because of his age. In 1807 Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life.” Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Legislature of Vermont, 1807
Most presidents honored the unwritten rule though a few ran for more than two terms. Those who did, with the exception of FDR, were defeated.
Many Americans like term limits and their only regrets on the matter is that they do not extend to Congress. Jefferson warned about the chief Magistrate serving for life but he failed to mention the members of Congress who, for the most part, get elected and have a job for life. This is why their performance is poor and their approval ratings low.
It has been said that continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. The American people keep reelecting the same people (with a few exceptions) to office over and over. Why do we expect that their performance will be any better than it has in the past?
Why mention it? It is important because now that Barack Obama has been elected the left is looking for a president for life. They are betting that this oh so popular sensation will be a hit and could keep getting reelected time and again but the XXII Amendment is a bit of an obstacle. In steps Jose Serrano (D-NY) to provide a remedy for that pesky little problem. It is called House Judicial Resolution 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. Here is the text:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
‘Article–
‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’. Gov Track
I doubt this will see the light of day and if it does make it to the full Congress I am fairly certain it will not be passed. They need two-thirds of each house which means they do not have enough votes without Republicans supporting it and there is no certainty that all Democrats will. Then they would need three-fourths of the states to ratify it so it is a safe bet that it will never make it anywhere.
However, the fact that this guy has introduced it is disturbing. We can’t get these people to pass Flag protection Amendments. I know the liberals will say that the courts should handle it (like Hillary did) but when the states enact rules the courts rule they are unconstitutional. I have a better solution than an Amendment but that is beside the point.
The reason it is hard to amend the Constitution is so that it will not be changed in a haphazard fashion.
Thank God our Founders had the sense to do that or the liberals would change it all the time.
In any event, this is what they are pushing for, Socialism with a leader for life who we can all bow down to and worship. A leader who can send government forces after us if we don’t march in lock step with them.
First they go for the guns, then they impose their will on those with no means to resist. It worked for Hitler and they think it will work for them. The tyranny is about to begin.
The most dangerous weapon in the world is an American with a gun who is trained to use it.
Maybe that Russian was right about a coming civil war here.
Buy guns and ammo…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: Democrats, gun control, monarchy, Obama, socialism