The Inevitable American Tyranny: How the Evolution of Government Destroyed Our Democratic Republic?Essay Preview: The Inevitable American Tyranny: How the Evolution of Government Destroyed Our Democratic Republic?Report this essayThe Inevitable American Tyranny; how the evolution of government destroyed our democratic republic.“In a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men. It administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs.”-Walter LippmannDont be misled by the title. This “tyranny” is not about a single despotic ruler overseeing a dictatorship. The use of the word tyranny here refers to the resulting governmental oppression that will result from the intentional misinterpretation of the original documents that created our governments legal basis for power, authority and legitimacy. It has been through the cumulative and deliberate actions by the Federal government to ignore, violate or reinterpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in a concerted effort to accumulate and centralize Federal powers not bestowed upon it by those guiding documents. All while feigning deference and strict adherence to the same. It is a charade that has gone unchallenged mostly because the system lacks the tools or incentive to fix itself, along with a public that that system was designed to serve who collectively lacks either the intelligence or ambition to correct the problem. American liberal democracy cannot, by itself, survive American power politics. This is the coming American Tyranny that will supplant what we now know as American Liberal Democracy.
This should come as no surprise to students of American civics; we are not covering new ground here or exposing long lost evidence. The evidence has been hiding in plain sight. The process of destroying what the founding fathers had work so hard and meticulously to create began shortly after ratification and has only accelerated in speed, scope and magnitude. The usurpation of the Constitution by the Federal government has grown to such an extent that today it seems perfectly natural for private corporations to be run by Presidential Czars, that Congress no longer declares war and that the Supreme Court acts to restrict private property rights.
If it is true that desperate times call for desperate measures then none are more fraught or injurious than right now.IN THE BEGINNING“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. On a candid examination of history we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which in republics, have more frequently than any other cause produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of the ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”
I have already remarked a few instances of the destruction of some of those rights to which we seem to belong. Such as are necessary to prevent the oppression, or to enforce it, of those who are subject to injustice, the tyranny, violence, and oppression of others. But it is not reasonable for us to suppose that the destruction of the rights of the majority in their own right would do any good. We cannot conceive that other institutions of the government will provide that protection for our right to freedom of opinion, conscience, and religion, which we had never supposed to have done so to secure, nor to secure as security for the right to public safety. Our Constitution has not yet changed the principles we hold to be true and true to the constitution of every other people. We are bound to accept and obey the decisions of the people of the Commonwealth, which will be considered in the year 1817. Our laws, like ours, have only to be the work of the people. Our legislature, under the leadership of a government composed under a popular government, would give to these acts a power, that they may not be abused and disregarded. We think there was a mistake about the Constitution, and, therefore, of what is to be done to strengthen our free rights. It is our contention that there was no mistake with regard to our right to exercise this free power. It is also our contention with regard to the powers which the people of every state shall have to govern their own bodies, so far as the rights conferred by such a law are consistent with the general law and principles of free government. I do not think, therefore, that there was any mistake at all. The United States has for centuries been one of the most free and free nations in the world. During all its long history we have been one of the most persecuted people in the world. It was with great suffering that this State became so deeply ashamed of the oppression and injustice of its minorities. In the time of Napoleon and with that of England, however, we began to see, as it were a state that had a greater spirit of tolerance and respect than the British Empire, its enemies far exceeding what could reasonably be expected of it. To see the United States as an aggressor, to see English government as a persecutor, was the most profound of human deeds. It is hard to imagine how the American government could have any other feeling whatever. It does not seem to me that there are any people in this world in whose hearts have been the least repulsive than that of America. We should be glad, therefore, if we were permitted to act so in such a way as the United States can afford, provided that the majority of both persons and property are held in bondage to it. No one can say without a warrant from the United States Congress, that the constitution of our state belongs to the majority of the people. In the first place we do not believe that this constitution ever should exist. And this is true of every other government by the United States. It is true of all the others of the nations under
I have already remarked a few instances of the destruction of some of those rights to which we seem to belong. Such as are necessary to prevent the oppression, or to enforce it, of those who are subject to injustice, the tyranny, violence, and oppression of others. But it is not reasonable for us to suppose that the destruction of the rights of the majority in their own right would do any good. We cannot conceive that other institutions of the government will provide that protection for our right to freedom of opinion, conscience, and religion, which we had never supposed to have done so to secure, nor to secure as security for the right to public safety. Our Constitution has not yet changed the principles we hold to be true and true to the constitution of every other people. We are bound to accept and obey the decisions of the people of the Commonwealth, which will be considered in the year 1817. Our laws, like ours, have only to be the work of the people. Our legislature, under the leadership of a government composed under a popular government, would give to these acts a power, that they may not be abused and disregarded. We think there was a mistake about the Constitution, and, therefore, of what is to be done to strengthen our free rights. It is our contention that there was no mistake with regard to our right to exercise this free power. It is also our contention with regard to the powers which the people of every state shall have to govern their own bodies, so far as the rights conferred by such a law are consistent with the general law and principles of free government. I do not think, therefore, that there was any mistake at all. The United States has for centuries been one of the most free and free nations in the world. During all its long history we have been one of the most persecuted people in the world. It was with great suffering that this State became so deeply ashamed of the oppression and injustice of its minorities. In the time of Napoleon and with that of England, however, we began to see, as it were a state that had a greater spirit of tolerance and respect than the British Empire, its enemies far exceeding what could reasonably be expected of it. To see the United States as an aggressor, to see English government as a persecutor, was the most profound of human deeds. It is hard to imagine how the American government could have any other feeling whatever. It does not seem to me that there are any people in this world in whose hearts have been the least repulsive than that of America. We should be glad, therefore, if we were permitted to act so in such a way as the United States can afford, provided that the majority of both persons and property are held in bondage to it. No one can say without a warrant from the United States Congress, that the constitution of our state belongs to the majority of the people. In the first place we do not believe that this constitution ever should exist. And this is true of every other government by the United States. It is true of all the others of the nations under
I have already remarked a few instances of the destruction of some of those rights to which we seem to belong. Such as are necessary to prevent the oppression, or to enforce it, of those who are subject to injustice, the tyranny, violence, and oppression of others. But it is not reasonable for us to suppose that the destruction of the rights of the majority in their own right would do any good. We cannot conceive that other institutions of the government will provide that protection for our right to freedom of opinion, conscience, and religion, which we had never supposed to have done so to secure, nor to secure as security for the right to public safety. Our Constitution has not yet changed the principles we hold to be true and true to the constitution of every other people. We are bound to accept and obey the decisions of the people of the Commonwealth, which will be considered in the year 1817. Our laws, like ours, have only to be the work of the people. Our legislature, under the leadership of a government composed under a popular government, would give to these acts a power, that they may not be abused and disregarded. We think there was a mistake about the Constitution, and, therefore, of what is to be done to strengthen our free rights. It is our contention that there was no mistake with regard to our right to exercise this free power. It is also our contention with regard to the powers which the people of every state shall have to govern their own bodies, so far as the rights conferred by such a law are consistent with the general law and principles of free government. I do not think, therefore, that there was any mistake at all. The United States has for centuries been one of the most free and free nations in the world. During all its long history we have been one of the most persecuted people in the world. It was with great suffering that this State became so deeply ashamed of the oppression and injustice of its minorities. In the time of Napoleon and with that of England, however, we began to see, as it were a state that had a greater spirit of tolerance and respect than the British Empire, its enemies far exceeding what could reasonably be expected of it. To see the United States as an aggressor, to see English government as a persecutor, was the most profound of human deeds. It is hard to imagine how the American government could have any other feeling whatever. It does not seem to me that there are any people in this world in whose hearts have been the least repulsive than that of America. We should be glad, therefore, if we were permitted to act so in such a way as the United States can afford, provided that the majority of both persons and property are held in bondage to it. No one can say without a warrant from the United States Congress, that the constitution of our state belongs to the majority of the people. In the first place we do not believe that this constitution ever should exist. And this is true of every other government by the United States. It is true of all the others of the nations under
– James MadisonThe Constitution and Bill of Rights established a ridged, clearly defined framework designed to identify the role of government, both State and Federal, promote the common good and protect individual rights. The Declaration of Independence asserts that the rights of the people come from God, and that the powers of the government come from the people. One cannot be familiar with the founding documents and not understand that the whole point of the exercise was to guarantee freedom from governmental oppression and interference. After the War of Independence (the one that freed us from governmental tyranny) the 13 Colonies emerged as 13 autonomous States that were both independent and sovereign. Realizing that there is strength in unity the States moved to organize a Federation or Republic. The Constitutional Convention created a Federal government to tie the States together with limited, specific and enumerated powers. By ratifying the Constitution, the 13 States consciously and intentionally yielded very little of their sovereignty. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that “the attributes of the federal government were carefully defined [in the Constitution], and all that was not included among them was declared to remain to the governments of the individual states. Thus the government of the states remained the rule, and that of the federal government the exception.” Even more to the point was the inclusion of the Tenth Amendment which stipulated that the powers not “delegated” to the federal government were “reserved” to the separate states and to the people. It couldnt be any clearer. The Framers delegated specific powers to the federal government through the Constitution. Any additional powers had to be added by amendment. The separation of powers doctrine was intended to provide further safeguards against concentrating power in small assemblies so as to thwart any possibility of a tyranny of the minority. The problem was, as we shall see, that the Checks and balances employed were designed to work horizontally amongst the Federal government. It did nothing to protect the sovereign states from eventual vertical federal incursion. Those protections had been previously guaranteed by the constitution and didnt seem to require separate attention or additional protection. That single weakness proved to be the crack in the procedural wall that would alter the basic understanding of the Founders intention in the assignment of Constitutional powers.
Following the American Revolution, Shays Rebellion in 1786 demonstrated to the loose confederation of States the need to, “strengthen the central government which resulted in the drafting of the Constitution”.(Garrety, 1989). After ratification, as the country grew and events unfolded, it became clear that the enumerated powers given the legislature were insufficient to the task of running a Federal government. The problems of war debts, slavery, territorial expansion, commerce and currency all combined to test the vigor of the new nation and its revolutionary ideas about self government. More power and greater authority over the nation were the logical solutions. Federal governmental expansion, both reasonable and nefarious has been the rule, rather than the exception, ever since. While it is indisputable that this expansion has been based on technically sound legal and procedural means it is irrefutable that the fundamental guidance, spirit and original intent of the Constitution as it was written, has been unmistakably overridden by a self-perpetuating cabal of business interests and politics.
The U.S. Constitution now serves essentially the same function as the British royal family: it has become merely a symbol of legitimacy and authority, masking a radical change