Could Barack Be Anything Besides a Manchurian Candidate?
Obama Assaults Democracy by Rejecting Popular Consent
By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, February 20, 2011
Does the “Will of the People” matter when government is run by a cadre of demigods? After all, is it really immoral to force Americans to do the good and avoid the bad? Contra, one can argue the very cornerstone of US constitutional theory is summed up in the doctrine of Consent of the Governed, since without acknowledging the popular will, every other act by government is tyranny. Yet, former constitutional instructor
Barack Obama constantly ignores and even flouts this principle in action.
Remember the
Declaration’s immortal words:
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
In ignoring America’s convictions, the current administration forfeits legitimacy, because each act done against consent furthers bitter reaction to non-representational government. For example, 75% of Americans want Obamacare amended. Yet the liberals in power treat us as children. Such a posture is an inversion of historic European Natural Law doctrines of self-government. Does
Obama believe himself so wise to want all rights of the people vested in him for safe-keeping? Hasn’t this idea been attempted already in the USSR?
The following essay examines Obama and the Consent of the Governed.
I. History of Popular Consent: Vox Populi
According to the
Dictionary of the History of Ideas, the notion of Popular Sovereignty, ie Will of the People, is traced back to at least the Demos of ancient Greece, or democratic assembly. Famously, the right to vote belonged to free, native male citizens of the city of Athens, leaving out more persons than had the franchise.
Ancient Rome had a fascinating political development, beginning with a kingdom, evolving into a Republic, adding elements of democracy, then lapsing back to tyranny via an emperor. Popular votes were held, and would-be rulers understood elected positions were more likely if one balanced gravitas with levitas, or a regal bearing offset by the common touch.
During the Middle Ages, much political philosophy developed in the Church, and by individual writers like
Marsilius of Padua and Machiavelli. Probably every important modern idea on the state emerged at least in outline during this period.
As
already mentioned, the general idea of social contract has its own story:
The history of the social contract covers three compelling elements, according to Sir Ernest Baker, in
Social Contract, Locke, Hume, Rousseau. The first is Roman Law, the second are biblical teachings, and the third, Aristotle’s
Politics. Writes Baker,
“Very large elements of political liberalism were based on a conflation of three sources—the teachings of the Bible, the doctrines of Roman Law, and the principles of Aristotle’s Politics. The Bible taught that the powers that be are ordained of God; but it also taught that David made a covenant with his people. It was the doctrine of Roman Law that quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem (“That which pleases the prince has the strength of law” ); but it was also the doctrine of Roman Law that the reason why this was so was that “the people, by the Lex Regia passed into regard to his authority and power. The principle of Aristotle’s Politics might seem to favor a monarchy of the one best man; but they also favored a clear distinction between the king and the tyrant, and they endorsed the right of the masses not only to elect the magistrate but also call him to account.”
II. Locke & Constitution
The Declaration was composed as an introduction to the Constitution. Cornerstone to the American theory of the rule of law, was inverting the singular authority of a king, or a cabal of legislators, into empowering “The People.” This idea developed from centuries of European ferment before use against royal tyranny, most famously in the American Revolution.
Father of the Enlightenment, John Locke, is rightly regarded a prime mover of the US Declaration and Constitution. Some passages of the Declaration are almost word-for-word renditions of
Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, the most influential original source of modern political ideas. Locke is also a colossus of classical liberalism.
Locke was able to achieve the almost impossible—becoming the greatest advocate for Conservative government stability, while allowing the possibility, or even duty, of rebellion against the rule of tyrants. Even more impressive, Locke was able to square this with his Puritan theological constructs.
For example, consider Locke’s Second Treatise on Government,
Chapter 19, Sec. 221: “Of the Dissolution of Government.”
There is therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust. First, The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.
And from Sec 226:
Thirdly, I Answer, That this Doctrine of a Power in the People of providing for their safety a-new by a new Legislative, when their Legislators have acted contrary to their trust, by invading their Property, is the best fence against Rebellion, and the probablest means to hinder it. For Rebellion being an Opposition, not to Persons, but Authority, which is founded only in the Constitutions and Laws of the Government; those, whoever they be, who by force break through, and by force justifie their violation of them, are truly and properly Rebels.
This language on principled revolt is
echoed in the Declaration:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…
III. Obama, Natural Law & Communism
A. Obama’s Litany of Self-Referential Rule
There is a long list of unpopular Obama decisions, which most Americans could probably name with great accuracy. As the following poll numbers show, Americans simply do not like Obama’s policies. Consider:
ObamaCare—75% of Americans want it changed. Half oppose Obama’s new budget spending;
67% favor states enforcing immigration laws—with
48% favoring beefed up borders, opposing Obama’s position;
Only 25% favor Obama’s Treasury Sec Timothy Geithner & DOJ chief Eric Holder; Just
31% believe Obama’s America is headed in the right direction; 55% think
Obama did not cut enough spending in new $3.7 trillion dollar budget; 57% believe the
bailouts were bad for the US; On Obama’s
high-speed rail program, 46% reject; 27% want an electric car in the next decade; 68% believe
Big Gov & Biz work against Americans; 80% think
terrorism a bigger threat than war; 75% believe
ObamaCare will cost more than promised; Only 33%
believe ObamaCare must be funded if not repealed; Just
21% want Obama’s Internet regulations; 66%
want Gov spending trimmed by 10%; Only 27% see
USA as inherently racist; 29% believe
Barack claim repeal of ObamaCare will increase deficit; Over half
think taxes can be cut while budget balanced; 56%
see Israel as an ally, Only 18%
believe Obama myth greatness of America came from government; etc., etc. etc.
The issue we must examine now, dreary it may be—is whether Obama’s unpopular positions are deplored because they are a dose of bitter, but healthy medicine? Are they likely to solve our problems in the here and now? Further, will his policies accomplish anything in the longterm? Unfortunately, Barack’s disastrous ideas almost universally are not good for the present, or future.
So, not only is Barack repeatedly making unpopular choices, but they are decried for being disastrous ideas defended by stupid, leftist rhetoric.
B. Natural Law Government Model
There is a Natural Law political model. In fact, it is the same one used by our Founders. Said Massachusetts patriot James Otis
about the Natural Law in 1764,
The rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws…
Such theories are founded upon Consent of the Governed, rule of law, with a government of separated powers, and limited state might, a default towards freedom, and a capitalist economy where all persons can develop their talents in the marketplace.
Says Thomas Jefferson on the Natural Law:
The moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.
C. Progressive’s Arrogant Leadership
One of the most notable aspects of Communist rule, were crazy decisions made by arrogant, smug, and very often mentally unhinged rulers, such as
Stalin, Lenin and
Mao, who between them killed at least 150 million innocents. But what is the hallmark of such humanistic government?
1. Autocratic and typically uninformed decision-making (like Mao’s Great Leap Forward, whose ill-advised policies killed perhaps 40 million Chinese).
2. Refusal to accept tradition as meaningful. Therefore experience is treated as a laughingstock.
3. Failure to use success as a goal; and substitution of political dogma in its place.
4. Utter fixation on leadership via philosophical innovations, instead of statecraft or logic.
5. Dismissal of the notion of Human Rights.
6. Refusal of Popular Sovereignty, or any actual democratic processes.
7. Banning of any religious expression, or biblical groups.
8. Usurpation of the Arts and Sciences as tools of the deified State.
9. Refusal to allow opposition, or any genuine free speech.
10. Demonizing of various powerful opponents, until outlawed, or killed.
11. Commandeering of procreation as a State defined undertaking.
12. Rise of pseudo-leadership by demagogues.
13. Ultimate ruination of the economy and society.
Whatever Obama’s model, or vision of the future, it does not appear to include a robust economy, military, or strong American international presence. Therefore, in his contempt for all things USA, he appears to be aping Marxist plans.
IV. Summary: Consent, the Foundation of Political Legitimacy
Pollster
Rasmussen reports “just 28% believe federal government today has the consent of the governed.” This creates several problems for Obama. First, most Americans do not experience government as representational. This is dangerous because it breeds a fatalistic and cynical populace increasingly disconnected from Washington, and all that implies.
Second, it forces a constitutional crisis. For, despite Barack’s poisonously smug demeanor in every setting, and claims of constitutional mastery, this creates a de facto lawless regime. For if Obama is continually defying the will of the people at every turn, he has created an anti-constitutional tyranny, and therefore must be stopped.
In conclusion, we have a constitutional, Natural Law duty to see Obama driven from office by impeachment. Because the only moral government, according to our Constitution, is one that derives its legitimacy from the Consent of the Governed, an idea Barack had refused to honor since gaining office.
Kelly O'Connell
BioKelly O'Connell
Most recent columns
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small
law practice in New Mexico.
Kelly can be reached at:
hibernian1@gmail.com
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
The Want, Will and Hopes of the People
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
— John Hancock
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina:William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
