Open by Easter?

Some are very critical of President Trump for wanting to get back to normal and setting a date.  He knows that this is an ambitious date and likely not possible for much of the country, but this date is not about medicine but liberty.

While the contagion that is sweeping the world is real and poses an existential risk, it’s spread is far behind the spread of another contagion—fear. 

Did anyone notice how quickly we surrendered our liberties in this country?  We did this believing they were for the greater good, but what about next time?

Having seen how easy it was to increase the power of government using fear as leverage, what comes next?  It seems that a third of this nation wants the government to be in charge of everything anyway. 

We have seen how half of our legislature used this crisis for political gain.  The very thing that the Founding Fathers thought to restrain with exceptional wisdom in our Constitution has been loosed.  Tyranny is alive and well in this century.

With most of the mainstream media sporting a liberal bias, the watchdog of government has been put on its leash.  The only guardian of a free society rests in the Second Amendment, and much of our nation wants to ignore the Supreme Law of the Land.

So where does that leave us?  Vulnerable, that’s where.  A Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of work and is not likely in our divided society, but fear has proved its worth to the one who has disdain for the governed and desires only power.

Why is it important to get out and back to work?  We need to kick fear to the curb.  Will there be medical casualties?  Yes.

There will be casualties whether we cower in fear or step out in courage once again, but the worst casualty imaginable would be the whimper of a free people surrendering their freedom.

Easter Sunday may or may not bring about some normalcy to our nation, but setting the goal is so important now.  Fear and government control must not become the new normal. 

Surely, there are parts of our nation that will not be close to normalcy by then, but many might be and they can be a beacon to the rest of the nation.  There may be some mitigation strategies required for some areas to begin this restoration process. 

Let’s do what our government asks of us knowing that the Chief Executive is on the side of liberty, but we must be vigilant and not become complacent.

There may be casualties as we fight to retain our liberty.  We are used to casualties on battlefields of bombs and bullets, but now we face an enemy that penetrates our lines across the nation.  That enemy is not a virus but fear.

The casualties incurred in preserving our freedom will be far less than those that we will bear to regain it. 

A Good Read

A Good Read

I re-read an old favorite of mine just because I picked it up again.  I guess you would call it a political thriller, though some might not find it so exciting.  It doesn't have the high tech warfare you might find in a Tom Clancy novel, but it is set forth in a time like our own when the political situation is somewhat tenuous.  There has been significant battle and bloodshed to this point, but the real struggle is more Machiavellian in nature.  I doubt that you will see this one in movie form.  Harrison Ford, Brad Pitt, and Demi Moore are not knocking at the door for lead roles.  This work would just be too tough to cast.   While the power struggle remains the same, the cast involved in that struggle changes too frequently to accommodate Hollywood egos and budgets.   This is one of those classics where the struggle itself is much greater than any single protagonist or villain.  It has a certain Shakespearean allure not only because of the intricacies of the power struggle, but because like the English Playwright's works, there is some question as to whether or not this one has a single author.

A good work always has conflict.  A great work intricately ties in not only a struggle between good and evil, but struggles among noble causes as well.  Quests for perfection, justice, or tranquility cause the reader to yearn for the next line or next page with the same or even greater anxiousness contained in a well spun mystery.  Shared existential risk balanced against noble ideas such as protecting the welfare of others--even the liberty of another generation--increases the drama of each successive word.  You won't buy the Cliff's Notes for this one.  The commentaries and reviews far exceed the length of the work itself.  You will, however, remember a line or two from this one, whether you have read it or not.  It begins, "We The People…"

Yes, this political thriller is the Constitution of the United States of America.  It is about a struggle for power, and like most political thrillers, that struggle is established by the authors themselves.  The authors recognized that power was indeed a corrupting force.  Power vested in a single man or woman could be used to promote domestic tranquility, or just as capriciously could be used to enslave the governed.  In this good versus evil genre, the authors knew that no single individual could overcome the temptations of power.  Their noble causes of domestic tranquility, common defense, and securing the blessing of liberty required that power not be permitted to consolidate in a single individual.  They set up accommodations for continued power struggles and inefficiency and by so doing offered no lodging for tyranny.

Our republic is based upon democratic premises tempered with state's rights.  The safeguards of the Constitution are vested in separation of powers not only at the federal level, but between the federal government and the states, with still more rights or liberties reserved directly to the people.  The more perfect union is a union of separate states.  The Electoral College may appear to be archaic, but it is representative of the distributive nature of power allocation in our system.  The Constitution is not a model designed for efficiency.  Instead, it is designed for the preservation of representative government.

The greatest fear of the founding fathers was tyranny.  That tyranny could come in the form of a popular president unwilling to relinquish his office or an Oliver Cromwell emerging from the legislature.  It could also come from the tyranny of mob rule.  We would like to think that we have outgrown the need for the protection from the tyranny of mob rule.  Before we acclaim ourselves so enlightened, we should first take stock of our emotional nature.  The single greatest threat to our nation is our intolerance of its inefficiency and imperfections.  Our emotional outcry for efficiency and certainty is an offer to have tyranny as our guest.  Before we decide that we have reached the point where we need to reinvent the whole government (yes, the founding fathers even had the sagacity to see that.  Read the Second Amendment), we should take the time to see why this one works the way it does.   If nothing else comes of accepting my invitation to this small investment of time, it should at least move the Constitution to the best seller list.  It's a good read. 

Let's have the gun debate

Let’s have the gun debate.  Let’s consider all factors not just those that support your slant on the subject.  Let’s consider the intent of the founders of our Republic, the cost of liberty in this post-modern world, and the consequences and sequels of repealing or eroding the sanctity of the Second Amendment.  That is what most people who advocate gun control are asking for—to make an ordinary law supersede the Law of the Land or to amend that supreme law.

I just ask that we consider what happens if we remove something that is a part of a very interconnected system.  Let’s not ride the wave of emotion while ignoring that we might be crashing into a rocky coastline instead of a sandy shore.

It’s just one amendment, right?

Yes, and no.  Consider that the first few amendments to our Constitution are about personal rights and liberties.  We are free to peacefully assemble, worship as we desire, and even petition the sovereign for redress of grievances.

We are free from excessive government intrusion in our lives.  We can’t just be rounded up and sentenced.  We have legal protections from our own government.  We even have a right to privacy that is not enumerated but which our highest court found in the penumbras or edges of other rights.

Within these first few amendments are contained the right to free speech and a free press.  Most believe these are critical to a free society.  But what if, speech and media became inundated with falsehood and deception.  Oops.  That’s happened.

Are we ready to regulate the press?  Are we prepared for censorship of our tweets and posts and all things communicative?  With the amount of fake news and never-ending editorials masquerading as news across the modern media, maybe the price we pay for free speech and the free press is too high.  Let’s consider kicking it to the curb as well. 

And this whole business of the right to privacy might not fit well in our modern world.  If the government could keep better watch on everyone, we might have fewer school shootings.

Hold your constitutional horses!  I thought that we were talking about guns?

We are.  I will make my point.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the right to make sure that the other rights and freedoms of the people are not revoked.  If our government becomes tyrannical (the concern of our founders) or perhaps Orwellian would be better suited for this time, we must be equipped to take our government back.

I don’t ever want to see that day.  So, I ask that those who want to enact some measure of gun control, consider that our founders connected this whole business of self-government by first separating executive, legislative, and judicial power at the federal level; then separating rights and liberties that belong to the federal government, state government, and the individual.  The mainstay of individual freedoms resides in the Bill of Rights.  The founders of our republic also buffered the potential for emotional tidal waves that might put an Oliver Cromwell on an American throne.  We know this as the Electoral College. 

Individually, we might not like the college or the right to bear arms or the protections afforded liars posing as journalists; but these are not stand-alone protections.  Our system of government was surely blessed by God to withstand the consolidation of power in any one area.

It’s not the most efficient system in the world.  Dictatorships are generally much more efficient, but for almost 242, we have valued liberty—especially individual liberty—over efficiency.

So, let’s have the debate.  Let’s bring in all the facts and information including the impact on our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties.  I would think that you might perceive my political and constitutional leanings, but I am willing to listen to facts—complete data not something skewed to support any position—and I will see if I need to accept some or all of the factually supported proposals.

Part of this consider-all-factors discussion must be the motivation to amend the Constitution.  Why do people want gun control?  Is it to give the government more control?  Is it to save innocent lives?

This is where some people are going to become angry that they read this far.  If it is to save innocent lives, then let’s include the abortion issue in this all factors discussion.  Those are the most innocent of lives taken by the hundreds of thousands each year.

But, the Supreme Court says that the fetus is not a life. You can’t argue with that!  The Supreme Court also upheld that the Second Amendment is a right guaranteed to the individual. 

So, if we are going to change things at the fundamental level to save lives—innocent lives, let’s get to some real life saving and remove the right to choose (kill) from our acquired individual liberties. 

This business of self-government is tough business.  Emotions must never carry the day.  We must have the same inspiration and dedication to make changes that we believe essential to preserving our liberties not just for ourselves but for our posterity. 

Let’s have the full discussion on guns and life and liberty.  Set aside the vitriol.  Use all of the facts and statistics and make a case for what you think is best.  Listen to the positions of others who abide by the same inspiration, dedication, and self-discipline in their arguments.  Then see what the best course for our nation is.

This is discussion and debate not a vitriolic condemnation of opinions other than our own.  If we are going to have a real debate, then do it right.

Getting out of our government quagmire

Look at the news.  It’s same stuff, different day.  Our national leaders are at odds about everything.  Everyone has an agenda.  If you don’t agree with it, then you must be evil.  A little gridlock is not a bad thing, but gridlock as a way of life has become counterproductive.  How do our elected officials break this gridlock?

I think I know of something that we should all agree upon.  It is the Preamble to the Constitution.  It is sort of the mindset of our government—the why of everything that follows.  Perhaps it might get us moving towards something better than the quagmire that has sullied our statesmanship.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

More perfect union.  We have many different opinions but one Union.  Quit polarizing our nation.  Realize that you won’t get everything you want, but work together to maintain a strong union.  You all work for the same boss—the people of the United States.  We are tired of your dissension.

Establish justice.  Our justice system is surely the worst ever, except for those in other countries.  Yes, we have some problems, but ours is better than most man-made systems.  That means you have time to focus on other areas right now.

Insure domestic tranquility.  Knock off all the discussion about guns and gun laws.  The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunters or home defense.  This is the most basic element of liberty provided by our Constitution.  If we want to change something, then let’s have the national discussion and put forth an Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment, but only after we decide as a nation (it is intentionally difficult to amend our supreme law of the land and with good cause) that our government will never be too powerful and too abusive that we must do as our founding fathers did and overthrow it.  Yes, there is a higher price to pay for this liberty today than in the late 18^th century.  We don’t need laws to circumvent this amendment.  We need as a people to affirm it at its current price or repeal it.  Our government has circumvented our constitution too many times.  Change it, embrace it, but don’t ignore it.

Provide for the common defense.  Our service men and women are the very best in the world—the very best.  Our equipment, research and development, and pay should reflect this.  We should never again engage them in an undeclared war.  For over half a century, our nation has gone to war without the backbone to declare it and the mission of our federal government seems to have been to lessen the impact of our wars upon the general population instead of to engage the entire population in winning our declared wars.  War should never be our first course of action, but when we do declare war our enemies should tremble in fear all the way up to the day of their surrender.  NO MORE UNDECLARED WARS!  The Congress of the United States needs to grow a set and step up to their responsibility.  Arm chair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen (even cheaper among the legislature).  We elected men and women to lead, not to second guess. 

Promote the general welfare.  This has been misconstrued to getting everyone on welfare.  We need to get America back to work.  That means that both major parties must set aside their absolutes and do what is best for the American people.  None of you have all the answers.  Together, you have enough answers.  The American people sent you to work on their behalf.  Finger pointing and never-ending rebuttals and vitriolic banter don’t count as work.  Work together for the welfare of our nation or file for unemployment because you are not doing the job for which we hired you.  Promote the general welfare or find yourself on welfare.

Preserve the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.  Tell all special interest groups to take a hike.  They are looking out for their own interests.  You were sent to look out for ours.  If every decision other than giving yourselves a raise each year results in brinkmanship, this union will not continue.  Will you let it crumble on your watch?  It is time to put aside partisan politics and put on the clothing of statesmanship.

Actually, that time has come and gone.  You need to play catch-up.  Realize that we have trusted you with our liberty and the liberty of our grandchildren.  Right now you are getting a D- in the trust department.  That dog don’t hunt!

Remember that our fathers not only established this wonderful constitution; they ordained it.  It is set apart from all the other laws of the land, and if we would look at the magnitude of its purpose and scope, we would see that it is set apart from every other man-made law on the planet.

It is time to live up to the expectations of the electorate and those who ordained this more perfect union.

A Christian's Prayer for America

My prayer is for a strong America.

One that is both safe and free.

My prayer is for a land where God

Is truly first in all we see.

My prayer is that the bitter acrimony

And the vitriolic overtones

Depart from every heart among us

And let the fruit of the Spirit be known.

But hate and divisiveness are the order of the day

And they have left no stone unturned

And hope of a revived nation

May not come before Christ’s return.

Oh how I would love to see the judgment

Of all the nations, but most of all

To hear the words “Well done” and “faithful”

When these United States of America are called.

Though I long to see our nation

Strong, and healthy, and on top once again.

It seems that we are headed elsewhere,

Thriving on hate and loving sin.

But God did not promise to preserve this nation,

Though that request I make anew each day.

He has commanded that we love and serve him

And follow Jesus along his way.

Sadly those two paths may be parting

The one of country and the one of God.

‘Tis a sad choice we leave our children

When God and country separately trod.

But to the Christians of this nation

Our call is clarion, crystal, clear.

To be God’s light amidst the darkness

In a land that once we held so dear.

But truly we are far from lucid

To think to be American is to be godly and just

When our words and actions question the motto

That we claim for our own:  “In God we trust.”

But as for me and for my household

We take light over darkness, and choose it again this very day.

And do pray in earnest that our nation will witness

The call to life that says Jesus the only way.

We knew this was coming yet tried to ignore it

For this very land some have shed their own blood.

But when faced with a choice so distinct and so real,

We are loyal to our homeland, to the Kingdom of God.

 When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people,  if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

 2 Chronicles 7:13-14

Now is the time for Congress to reclaim its authority to declare war

Qaddafi surely ranks among the worst leaders of the past fifty years.

Most people believe that Libya would be better off without him.

Almost a quarter century ago I was aboard the U.S.S. Saipan as part of a sizeable naval force that crossed the so called Line of Death that Qaddafi had supposedly drawn in the Gulf of Sidra.   He did nothing.  Had he done anything: we would have responded.   I would have believed it to be a just cause and would have gladly led Marines to welcome this yahoo to the infernal regions

Today, Qaddafi is still an affront to leadership but one which the international community has somehow accepted as a perennial institution in Libya.

The world would be better off without Qaddafi. 

I can’t believe we attacked Libya.  That’s not quite true.  I don’t want to believe that we attacked Libya.

Why?   I thought the guy was a total jerk and the world would be better off without him.

True, but we are worse off for doing this.  In what has gone virtually unnoticed by the American people, the President of the United States engaged United States military forces as if he were throwing a dollar ante into a Friday night poker game.

Where has our Constitution gone?

Where has the compromised constitution—better known as the War Powers Act—gone?

Can the President truly treat the Congress of the United States as an ancient Privy Council, consulting as he deems appropriate?

From Truman to Obama the authority to declare war has been on a pilgrimage from Congress to the President without the courtesy of swinging by the age old friend known as the Constitutional Amendment.

But what about the War Powers Act?

It was doomed in its genesis.  For an ordinary law to restrain a president when the Supreme Law of the Land has been ignored for over half a century is but a political placebo taken so we do not have to take our real medicine.

The authority to declare war resides in the Congress because that body of selfless public servants, self-serving knuckleheads, doctors, lawyers, saints, sinners, and everything in between is most representative of the will of the people. 

Our Founding Fathers knew that war is something not to be taken lightly.  It was not to be avoided at all costs, but it was not to be entered into without the will of the people who trusted their authority to those elected to represent them.

Does Qaddafi need to hit the road?  I can think of as many reasons to say yes as there are spellings of Kaddafi. 

Does the use of our nation’s military forces for war fighting purposes need to be preceded by a declaration of war?   Yes!

If we truly want to preserve the American way of life for ourselves and our posterity, we need Congress to man-up and reclaim the authority to declare war once again.  That means that they must be willing to impeach and convict any president who would defy the Constitution of the United States from this point forward.

It’s time for Congress to step up to this ultimate leadership task.

Why Separation of Powers is Not Distinct

The 2000 election prompted a piece of discourse that explained our concept of fairness—or equity—within our system of government.  It was a time when people wanted to discount the Electoral College, a time when the presidency of this nation was bounced around in the Florida and in Federal Courts, and ultimately decided in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The following piece addresses the roots of our current system not with regard as to why we have separation of powers, but as to why they are not distinct.

Why Separation of Powers is Not Distinct

If you thought that the last time you would have to hear the term separation of powers was in your high school civics class, then the 2000 presidential election certainly spoiled that plan.  While the emotional argument in Florida is to count every vote; the real issue at stake is the distribution of power in the entities of our American government.  Our system of government sets up three ongoing battles for domestic power.  The first revolves around those powers or rights reserved to individuals and those relinquished to various levels of the government.  Next, the Constitution divides powers between the federal government and the several states.  Finally, power is distributed among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.  This distribution is nearly mirrored at the federal and state levels.  It is this last distribution of power which is the source of most conflict.

 Our constitution begins with a noble preamble that enumerates the general scope of our government.  Unfortunately, it jumps directly from the purpose to Articles I, II, and III which establish the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches without an overall  concept of operations.  These articles empower and limit but do not generally define how conflicts between branches will be resolved.  There are some exceptions, specifically enacting legislation, filling vacancies, and impeachment; but as a whole the constitution focuses on three separate entities with little attention paid to boundaries and interaction.  This does not diminish the value of what the founding fathers provided us.  Our Constitution has served us well for 224 years with only infrequent modification, but to truly understand it, we must examine a piece of history that goes beyond our shores

 Our founding fathers were less focused on specific boundaries for each of the branches than they were with providing a lasting foundation that separated them.  They dealt first hand with a monarchy that had gradually and begrudgingly divested itself of total sovereignty.  The Magna Charta was not a government reinvented from the ground up, but a milestone in power wrestled from a monarch.  While the most visible struggle in British Constitutional History is arguably that between the monarch and the parliament; perhaps the most applicable to our government is that of the Chancellor and his equitable powers. 

 About the same time that America was discovered and colonization began, England faced mounting problems with its laws.  Statutory law was in its infancy and common law was the preponderance of the judicial foundation.  Unfortunately, common law did not provide remedies in many situations, most of them arising out of property arrangements.  Such remedies could only be obtained from the monarch, or his chief minister--the chancellor.  The chancellor was a unique individual.  He governed in the king's council, had some jurisdiction over the common law courts, and represented the king's conscience.  He could provide extraordinary relief that the courts could not.  He could provide equity.  Equity in its broadest sense denotes the spirit of fairness and justness.  It is justice ascertained by natural reason or ethical insight but independent of the formulated body of the law.

 The chancellor was often a bishop, well schooled in Roman and Canon law.  When he found nothing in the common law, he relied upon his ecclesiastic training to provide a remedy.  In the British power struggle, the chancellor was perceived as a threat to both parliament and the common law courts.  While the chancellor exercised both legislative and judicial authority, he was primarily an extension of the monarch--the executive.  As the British system evolved, the equitable powers of the chancellor became less intrusive to the other branches of government through the adoption of equitable principles.  Eventually, precedent carried greater weight than individual discretion.  This self regulation of the chancery preserved its existence.

 When the Constitution of the United States was formulated, equitable power was placed exclusively in the judiciary.  What had crossed functional areas in the British system was now reposed in a single branch.  What had originally been executive power restrained by the parliament was now wholly vested in one branch of our government.  Such a history does not make for a restrained court system.  The equitable jurisdiction of the chancellor allowed him to step across functional boundaries to provide remedies.  Even though equity has become much more formalized and governed to a very significant degree by precedent, its roots belie its restriction to a single branch.  Equity is the province of the sovereign and resists division.

 I advocate judicial restraint and recognize that such a conservative approach will sometimes create selective injustices.  That is, the court system will not always be able to provide a remedy.  Sometimes, the judiciary must simply wait for the legislature to create a remedy in law.  My position is backed by a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  Some courts are more active and generally are classified as liberal or activist.  They always seek to find a remedy.  Their legitimacy is not found in the Constitution but in the history of common law and the equitable jurisdiction of the chancellor.  In a government where power is consolidated in a monarch or dictator, there is no conflict.  In a government that has separated basic government functions to prevent tyranny, conflict is inherent in the organization and aggravated by assigning powers not divisible by three to a single branch.

 I can offer no alternative without increasing the risk of excessive power consolidated in the executive branch or diluting the power of each branch to impotence.  Equitable power is the free safety of football or the rover in softball.  It instinctively moves to fill a void in power.  It is generally constrained to follow precedent but not restrained by it when new remedies are required.  It can serve as the oil that lubricates the wheels of our government or it can grind that same government to a halt to effect an individual remedy.  It provides comfort that imperfections will be overcome and anxiety over what those unknown remedies will be.  Equity recognizes the divisions of our governmental system but knows no timidity when testing their boundaries.  While our founding fathers greatest fear was that a government of the people would surrender their plenary power to a power hungry executive; it is the tool of the monarch's first minister--the equitable power of the chancellor--that is the wild card in our system of government.  That power is vested in the judiciary, but by its very nature must venture elsewhere.

 With such a natural disposition to cross functional boundaries, why would I advocate restraint in a judiciary vested with equitable powers?    The very nature of equitable power in 14th century Britain was nearly its undoing.  The equitable power of the chancellor threatened both parliament and common law courts, but instead of an overt power struggle, equity limits were subtly restrained.  Such restraint was not by the parliament or the courts but by the nature of the equitable power itself.  It offered remedies not elsewhere available and the chancellor's court was quickly overwhelmed.  Remedies that supplanted other alternatives available from the government were self defeating.  The most viable solution was self restraint.  Rigidity and precedent became the rule and new remedies in equity were reserved for the truly extraordinary case.

Equitable power became formalized and survived the power struggles of our ancestors.  While the philosophical composition of any court may cause it to test the boundaries of power; it is equity that invites a judicial body to boldly journey into the roles of legislator and executive.    Those exercising such equitable power know that every such venture comes with the concomitant that it may be the very event that topples the delicate balance of separated powers.  Such power must be wielded with exceptional restraint.

A Good Read

I re-read an old favorite of mine just because I picked it up again.  I guess you would call it a political thriller, though some might not find it so exciting.  It doesn't have the high tech warfare you might find in a Tom Clancy novel, but it is set forth in a time like our own when the political situation is somewhat tenuous.  There has been significant battle and bloodshed to this point, but the real struggle is more Machiavellian in nature.  I doubt that you will see this one in movie form.  Harrison Ford, Brad Pitt, and Demi Moore are not knocking at the door for lead roles.  This work would just be too tough to cast.   While the power struggle remains the same, the cast involved in that struggle changes too frequently to accommodate Hollywood egos and budgets.   This is one of those classics where the struggle itself is much greater than any single protagonist or villain.  It has a certain Shakespearean allure not only because of the intricacies of the power struggle, but because like the English Playwright's works, there is some question as to whether or not this one has a single author.

A good work always has conflict.  A great work intricately ties in not only a struggle between good and evil, but struggles among noble causes as well.  Quests for perfection, justice, or tranquility cause the reader to yearn for the next line or next page with the same or even greater anxiousness contained in a well spun mystery.  Shared existential risk balanced against noble ideas such as protecting the welfare of others--even the liberty of another generation--increases the drama of each successive word.  You won't buy the Cliff's Notes for this one.  The commentaries and reviews far exceed the length of the work itself.  You will, however, remember a line or two from this one, whether you have read it or not.  It begins, "We The People…"

Yes, this political thriller is the Constitution of the United States of America.  It is about a struggle for power, and like most political thrillers, that struggle is established by the authors themselves.  The authors recognized that power was indeed a corrupting force.  Power vested in a single man or woman could be used to promote domestic tranquility, or just as capriciously could be used to enslave the governed.  In this good versus evil genre, the authors knew that no single individual could overcome the temptations of power.  Their noble causes of domestic tranquility, common defense, and securing the blessing of liberty required that power not be permitted to consolidate in a single individual.  They set up accommodations for continued power struggles and inefficiency and by so doing offered no lodging for tyranny.

Our republic is based upon democratic premises tempered with state's rights.  The safeguards of the Constitution are vested in separation of powers not only at the federal level, but between the federal government and the states, with still more rights or liberties reserved directly to the people.  The more perfect union is a union of separate states.  The Electoral College may appear to be archaic, but it is representative of the distributive nature of power allocation in our system.  The Constitution is not a model designed for efficiency.  Instead, it is designed for the preservation of representative government.

The greatest fear of the founding fathers was tyranny.  That tyranny could come in the form of a popular president unwilling to relinquish his office or an Oliver Cromwell emerging from the legislature.  It could also come from the tyranny of mob rule.  We would like to think that we have outgrown the need for the protection from the tyranny of mob rule.  Before we acclaim ourselves so enlightened, we should first take stock of our emotional nature.  The single greatest threat to our nation is our intolerance of its inefficiency and imperfections.  Our emotional outcry for efficiency and certainty is an offer to have tyranny as our guest.  Before we decide that we have reached the point where we need to reinvent the whole government (yes, the founding fathers even had the sagacity to see that.  Read the Second Amendment), we should take the time to see why this one works the way it does.   If nothing else comes of accepting my invitation to this small investment of time, it should at least move the Constitution to the best seller list.  It's a good read. 

Read this on Examiner