If you read campaign ads for people who want to be a US Senator, you often see that they have a personal agenda that they would like to impose on the citizens of America.
“Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) says she will challenge Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Gov. David Paterson’s choice to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat, in a 2010 primary. McCarthy says Gillibrand’s 100 percent positive rating from the National Rifle Association makes her unacceptable.”
Here we have a Democrat politician (McCarthy) who wants to unseat a brand new Democrat Senator (Gillibrand) simply because Gillibrand believes in the Constitution.
It was intended by the authors of the Constitution that the Senate deal with issues that concern the states, hence the fact that each state gets two senators, no matter what their population may be. Likewise, the House of Representatives were intended to represent the affairs of the citizens, therefore the number of Representatives of each state is related to that state’s population.
Members of the US Senate are supposed to represent their state in relation to affairs of the country as a whole. Even if we imagine for a moment that the federal government would never pass laws which would infringe on the rights of the citizens (we can always dream, can’t we?), where is the logic in any Senator wanting to impose his personal beliefs on citizens of other states? If it is truly his goal to impose his will on the population, wouldn’t it be more logical for him to be a state representative, where he can propose and vote on laws which would directly affect citizens of his state? If he indeed wants to impose his will on citizens of other states, we surely must ask ourselves “why?”. Besides the fact that his personal agenda probably just happens to be unConstitutional, it also gives every appearance of someone who just wants to have power over others. He wants to be a “ruler.” That many of the things he proposes are fascist and/or National Socialist is obvious. That he does everything in his power to expand the powers of the government is clear.
Did you ever wonder why it is that fascists always try to ban guns as soon as they can? Would they have us believe that they are so naive that they believe that outlawing a firearm will prevent a murder when outlawing murder itself has little deterrent effect? The truth of the matter is that if laws worked, there would be no crime. So, why do they want to outlaw firearm ownership by The People? Could it be that the fascists really want, more than anything, to allow the government to have a monopoly on power?
Over the past 100 years or so, one of the basic safeguards has been gradually eroded. This is the separation of powers among the three branches of government – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Each was to have its own well-defined area of power within the federal government.
For instance, the president, being the head of the Executive branch, can not introduce or vote on bills in congress. He can veto bills which have pass both houses of the Legislature, but his veto can be over-ridden by congress. Two things the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee: First is the entirely unConstitutional “Execute Order,” by which the president grants himself the power to legislate with the stroke of one pen (his), with no debate, no oversight by congressional committees, and no accountability. Second is the fact that the founders believed that the citizens would more or less “draft” the best legal and logical minds, from among the citizens at large. They couldn’t have imagined our current two-party system where millions of dollars are spent on a PR (propaganda) campaign in what amounts to a high school popularity contest (Who’s the best speech-giver? Who’s the best looking?).
The Judicial branch adjudicates cases at law at the federal level (US District Courts, US Appellate Courts, US Supreme Court). It determines the Constitutionality of laws which are challenged. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, which was intended to remove political considerations from affecting their rulings. However, I don’t think the authors of the Constitution ever imagined that Justices would be appointed according to their party loyalty, and how well they parrot the party line.
The Legislative branch, being so potentially powerful, has safeguards built into it as well – notably that a bill must pass in the originating house, and then be passed in the other house, before being sent to the president who muct then sign it into law (or veto it). Furthermore, any bill which has to do with appropriations must originate in the House of Representatives (which was the house intended to represent The People, rather than the states themselves as political entities). Again, the framers assumed that the best, most honorable, and smartest would be elected by The People to represent them in the House of Representatives. And, originally, the Senators were to be appointed by the STATE LEGISLATURES, and it was naturally assumed that each state’s congressmen would pick the most notable, moral, and honorable from among the state’s population to be that states’ US Senator, who would then represent that state’s interests in the US Senate when necessary.
However, things have gradually changed over the course of the past 100 years or so. We have what is called “judicial activism,” which means that judges will rule on a case NOT according to whether or not the law is Constitutional, but rather how they can rule that will forward their own personal agenda.
Now, each of the two major parties picks their candidates from among those who most closely toe the party line, and who have, in the past, given large amounts of money to the party. The amount of money spent on campaigns for congressional elections runs well into the millions, so if you don’t have either the national Democratic or Republican party behind you, you will be a virtual unknown. Another little way that the two major parties maintain their grasp on the American political system is the way that they have written the campaign rules such as the “matching funds” laws, where if a candidate raises a certain amount of money and is certain to get a particular number of votes, then the federal government will match that candidate’s contributions.
All of these changes make it all the more easy for some unscrupulous politician to get into office, and then work toward instituting his personal agenda, rather than actually represent his state (in the case of a Senator) or the whole of his state’s population (in the case of a Representative). Unfortunately, there is no “test” that a bill must pass to prove that it is Constitutional before that bill can be voted on. There is also not requirement that a bill contain only items that deal with the subject of the bill. A LOT of “pork,” “set-asides,” and payoffs get stuck in bills this way. Federal bills are so lengthy that nobody has time to read them before they vote on them. They rely on the title and a summary paragraph. A bill with the touchy-feely title of “To Save Paraplegic Orphans from the Dangers of Nuclear Radiation” might have the summary paragraph of “To prevent orphan deaths caused by nuclear radiation, and for other purposes.” It’s those “and for other purposes” that you have to watch.
But, what of the bills which have a title which actually gives a fairly accurate idea of what it’s about? Well, there are a lot of politicians who will vote the way that their party orders them to. And then there are other congressmen who are coerced into voting a certain way by other congressmen, their party’s bosses, or maybe the president. All it takes is enough people telling him “If you want your favorite bill to pass next week, you’d better vote ‘yea’ on this one,” or “We gave you $100,000 to win this office, so I think you need to vote the way we tell you,” or even “Nice family you have there. It would be a shame if their knees all got broken.”
So, we come back to the question “Why would a Senator be so determined to pass a law which restricts the rights of everyone in the country?” The obvious answer is “because he can.” It makes him feel big and powerful. It also removes The People’s ‘Ultimate Veto,’ which would come into play when congress finally goes too far in the minds of too many people. It also makes them rich beyond their wildest dreams.
For example, this new “Ammunition Accountability Act” that is being introduced all over the place. A company patents a new method to essentially laser etch a serial number of every round of ammunition. Now, nobody is going to use this expensive technology, which is a solution looking for a problem. So, they get politicians all over the country to introduce laws which would require EVERY round of ammunition sold in this country to be coded by their process, and then each serial number be entered into a database. Also, five cents would be added to the cost of each round: one percent going to the retailer for the trouble of having to record the serial numbers of every round of ammo he sells, and all the personal information of each buyer and putting it all in a database. The remaining 99% of 5 cents for EVERY ROUND would go to this company to “maintain the databases.” The figures I saw claimed that there were about 100 Billion rounds sold in this country last year. If the database company gets about 4 cents for every one of those rounds, you can see that there is Big Bucks in it for them. The company who got the patent on the serial number technology will also come out pretty good, since they will have gotten a law passed which will FORCE people to use their product. Certain Senators will also come out smiling, since it advances their personal agenda. The only thing we don’t know if who is bribing whom.
The only losers in this whole deal, as is always the case when politicians act, are The People.