Who really provides the best and brightest hope for the American republic as a Presidential candidate? If I had to cast my vote right now for one of the long list of campaigning millionaires, it would be for ‘none of the above.’
Who really provides the best hope for the American republic as a Presidential candidate? If I had to cast my vote right now for one of the long list of campaigning millionaires, it would be for ‘none of the above.’ An honest middle-class farmer from the U.S. heartland would certainly be a better choice than one of nine designing plutocrats who would, no doubt, continue the illicit unconstitutional traditions of the Caesar-like post-modern President.
Looking back at the Executive Branch at the time George Washington was elected President with no opposition, the framers had intended to write Article 2, of the U.S. Constitution, to severely limit the capacity of a chief executive to exert king-like power over the will of Congress, and that of the governed people of the nation. Yet, that was conveyed in theory, not in practice. Subsequently, the only reason that George Washington was elected as President with no opposition, in 1789, was that there was no popular vote of the people, and no opposing candidate, in which to provide a viable alternative. That was, if anything, a pre-determined election by 69 wealthy presidential electors. History shows that it wasn’t until 1820 that a popular vote was actually taken, and counted, in a presidential election. Moreover, it wasn’t until that time that citizens, not owning land, were permitted to vote in national elections. Why? The framers, all basically wealthy men, wanted to ensure that their money would stay intact, and that a traditional power structure would be firmly established, which would not be feasibly challenged later-on by common rank-and-file Americans.
In the same pragmatic fashion, the framers could have, instead, foreseen the future socio-economic plight of a greatly increased population, and of the many poor among it, and concertedly planned an economic system that would have promoted the welfare of the poor in the manner seemingly conveyed by the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. That is, if they had not been more concerned about the future of their own wealth than the basic right of every citizen to the fundamental requirements, demanded by nature, for mere human existence, such as shelter, food, clothing, and medical assistance. Capitalism and free enterprise provided continuing insurance that only those citizens with the money to invest, and reinvest, would be benefited financially and socially. Hence, after 219 years, 98 percent of the money in the American republic is currently controlled by only 2 percent of the people.
The perpetuation of a plutocracy, or rule by the rich, is, and has been, the basic plan of American federal politics. With each U.S. congressman, and senator, receiving a salary of $190,000 per year, plus generous benefits, it is not hard for a multi-reelected politician to become a millionaire within a short amount of time. Imposed term limits would reasonably assure that opportunistic federal legislators would not, over decades, become power bases for corporate and special interests. Nonetheless, a legislative branch that can approve its own pay increases would not slay the goose that laid the golden egg of unlimited reelection opportunity. For a newly elected President to challenge the existing plutocratic system, that bold individual would, under existing conditions, seal his own political fate, if not his death. Anyone who can read and understand the English language may read the U.S. Constitution and note how the powers of the Legislative Branch, under Article 1, Section 8, have been negated, without proper amendment, and transferred to the Executive Branch, such as the power, and responsibility, of controlling the amount of, and value of, money in circulation in the U.S. economy, and the power to makes rules governing the movement of land, air, and naval military forces. No where in Article 2, or the powers of the President, are these powers found.
Therefore, the power of the post-modern President is claim to illicit tradition, and not proper constitutional law. And all the current candidates for the presidency, except, perhaps, one, Rep. Ron Paul, are in favor of continuing that illegitimate tradition. Yet, these traditions would not have been started if majorities of the previous U.S. Congresses had not allowed them to occur. For example, the Federal Reserve Act, which stripped Congress of the power to control the coinage and value of U.S. money, was approved and passed, in 1913, by a majority of the existing Congress. The Patriot Act, which is as unconstitutional as was the early 19th Century Alien-Sedition Laws, was passed by a Congress, the majority of which did not even read, or debate, the formal bill. Even if Ron Paul were elected, which is a super long-shot, he would surely be silenced by a Congress demanding continuance of an illegal status-quo. Hence, the traditional candidates, Clinton, McCain, Obama, Romney, Huckabee, and Edwards, eagerly want the power to continue the unconstitutional Caesar-like traditions of the post-modern President. Perhaps that is why tens-of-millions of voters are refusing to vote in the primaries, and will probably refuse to vote the November 2008 general election. You know, I can’t really blame them for abstaining.