Or so we were told.  That has probably never been true.  Now we are told that is how it once was, but a new role of government is emerging.  Yet this new role is the same role it has been for millenia.  How is that new?  It’s not.  It’s a scam.

57 years ago, this man knew what most Americans can’t figure out today.

The Republic Becomes the Empire by Garet Garrett

We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. If you ask when, the answer is that you cannot make a single stroke between day and night. The precise moment does not matter. There was no painted sign to say, “You now are entering Imperium.” Yet it was a very old road and the voice of history was saying: “Whether you know it or not, the act of crossing may be irreversible.” And now, not far ahead, is a sign that reads: “No U Turns.”

If you say there were no frightening omens, that is true. The political foundations did not quake; the graves of the Fathers did not fly open; the Constitution did not tear itself up. If you say people did not will it, that also is true. But if you say therefore it has not happened, then you have been so long bemused by words that your mind will not believe what the eye can see, even as in the jungle the terrified primitive, on meeting the lion, importunes magic by saying to himself, “He is not there.” That a republic may vanish is an elementary schoolbook fact.

The Roman Republic passed into the Roman Empire, and yet never could a Roman citizen have said, “That was yesterday.” Nor is the historian, with all the advantages of perspective, able to place that momentous event at any exact point on the dial of time. The Republic had a long unhappy twilight. It is agreed that the Empire began with Augustus Caesar. Several before him had played emperor and were destroyed.

The first who might have been called emperor in fact was Julius Caesar, who pretended not to want the crown and once publicly declined it. Whether he feared more the displeasure of the Roman populace or the daggers of the republicans is unknown. In his dreams he may have been seeing a bloodstained toga. His murder soon afterward was a desperate act of the dying republican tradition, and perfectly futile. His heir was Octavian, and it was a very bloody business, yet neither did Octavian call himself emperor.

On the contrary, he was most careful to observe the old legal forms. He restored the Senate. Later he made believe to restore the Republic, and caused coins to be struck in commemoration of that event. Having acquired by universal consent, as he afterward wrote, “complete dominion over everything, both by land and sea,” he made a long and artful speech to the Senate, and ended it by saying: “And now I give back the Republic into your keeping. The laws, the troops, the treasury, the provinces, are all restored to you. May you guard them worthily.”

The response of the Senate was to crown him with oak leaves, plant laurel trees at his gate and name him Augustus. After that he reigned for more than forty years and when he died the bones of the Republic were buried with him. “The personality of a monarch,” says Stobart,

“had been thrust almost surreptitiously into the frame of a republican constitution…. The establishment of the Empire was such a delicate and equivocal act that it has been open to various interpretations ever since. Probably in the clever mind of Augustus it was intended to be equivocal from the first.”

What Augustus Caesar did was to demonstrate a proposition found in Aristotle’s “Politics,” one that he must have known by heart, namely this:

“People do not easily change, but love their own ancient customs; and it is by small degrees only that one thing takes the place of another; so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about a revolution in the state.”

Revolution within the form.

There is no comfort in history for those who put their faith in forms; who think there is safeguard in words inscribed on parchment, preserved in a glass case, reproduced in facsimile and hauled to and fro on a Freedom Train.

Let it be current history. How much does the younger half of this generation reflect upon the fact that in its own time a complete revolution has taken place in the relations between government and people? It may be doubted that one college student in a thousand could even state it clearly. The first article of our inherited tradition, implicit in American thought from the beginning until a few years ago, was this: Government is the responsibility of a self-governing people. That doctrine has been swept away; only the elders remember it.

Now, in the name of democracy, it is accepted as a political fact that people are the responsibility of government. The forms of republican government survive; the character of the state has changed. Formerly the people supported government and set limits to it and minded their own lives.

Now they pay for unlimited government, whether they want it or not, and the government minds their lives — looking to how they are fed and clothed and housed; how they provide for their old age; how the national income, which is the product of their own labor, shall be divided among them; how they shall buy and sell; how long and how hard and under what conditions they shall work, and how equity shall be maintained between the buyers of food who dwell in the cities and the producers of food who live on the soil. For the last named purpose it resorts to a system of subsidies, penalties and compulsions, and assumes with medieval wisdom to fix the just price.

This is the Welfare State. It rose suddenly within the form. It is legal because the Supreme Court says it is. The Supreme Court once said no and then changed its mind and said yes, because meanwhile the President who was the architect of the Welfare State had appointed to the Supreme Court bench men who believed in it.

The founders who wrote the Constitution could no more have imagined a Welfare State rising by sanction of its words than they could have imagined a monarchy; and yet the Constitution did not have to be changed. It had only to be reinterpreted in one clause — the clause that reads: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, imposts and excises to pay its debts and provide for common defense and welfare of the United States.”

“We are under a Constitution,” said Chief Justice Hughes, “but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

The president names the members of the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. It follows that if the president and a majority of the Senate happen to want a Welfare State, or any other innovation, and if, happily for their design, death and old age create several vacancies on the bench so that they may pack the Court with like-minded men, the Constitution becomes, indeed, a rubberoid instrument.

The extent to which the original precepts and intentions of constitutional, representative, limited government, in the republican form, have been eroded away by argument and dialectic is a separate subject, long and ominous, and belongs to a treatise on political science.

The one fact now to be emphasized is that when the process of erosion has gone on until there is no saying what the supreme law of the land is at a given time, then the Constitution begins to be flouted by Executive will, with something like impunity. The instances may not be crucial at first and all the more dangerous for that reason. As one is condoned, another follows, and they become progressive.

To outsmart the Constitution and to circumvent its restraints became a popular exercise of the art of government in the Roosevelt regime. In defense of his attempt to pack the Supreme Court with social-minded judges after several of his New Deal laws had been declared unconstitutional, President Roosevelt wrote: “The reactionary members of the Court had apparently determined to remain on the bench for as long as life continued-for the sole purpose of blocking any program of reform.”

Among the millions who at the time applauded that statement of contempt there were very few, if there was indeed one, who would not have been frightened by a revelation of the logical sequel. They believed, as everyone else did, that there was one thing a President could never do. There was one sentence of the Constitution that could not fall, so long as the Republic lived.

The Constitution says: “The Congress shall have power to declare war.” That, therefore, was the one thing no president could do. By his own will he could not declare war. Only Congress could declare war, and Congress could be trusted never to do it but by will of the people — or so they believed. No man could make it for them. Even if you think that President Roosevelt got the country into World War II, that was not the same thing. For a declaration of war he went to Congress — after the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor. He may have wanted it, he may have planned it; and yet the Constitution forbade him to declare war and he dared not do it. Nine years later a much weaker president did.

President Truman, alone and without either the consent or knowledge of Congress, had declared war on the Korean aggressor, 7000 miles away, Congress condoned his usurpation of its exclusive constitutional power. More than that, his political supporters in Congress argued that in the modern case that sentence in the Constitution conferring upon Congress the sole power to declare war was obsolete.

Mark you, the words had not been erased; they still existed in form. Only they had become obsolete. And why obsolete? Because now war may begin suddenly, with bombs falling out of the sky, and we might perish while waiting for Congress to declare war.

The reasoning is puerile. The Korean war, which made the precedent, did not begin that way; secondly, Congress was in session at the time, so that the delay could not have been more than a few hours, provided Congress had been willing to declare war; and, thirdly, the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Republic may in a legal manner act defensively before a declaration of war has been made. It is bound to be made if the nation has been attacked.

Mr. Truman’s supporters argued that in the Korean instance his act was defensive and therefore within his powers as commander-in-chief. In that case, to make it constitutional, he was legally obliged to ask Congress for a declaration of war afterward. This he never did. For a week Congress relied upon the papers for news of the country’s entry into war; then the president called a few of its leaders to the White House and told them what he had done.

A year later Congress was still debating whether or not the country was at war, in a legal, constitutional sense. A few months later Mr. Truman sent American troops to Europe to join an international army, and did it not only without a law, without even consulting Congress, but challenged the power of Congress to stop him. Congress made all of the necessary sounds of anger and then poulticed its dignity with a resolution saying the president’s action was all right for that one time, since anyhow it had been taken, but that hereafter Congress would expect to be consulted.

At that time the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate asked the State Department to set forth in writing what might be called the position of executive government. The State Department obligingly responded with a document entitled, “Powers of the President to Send Troops Outside of the United States — Prepared for the use of the joint committee made up of the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on the Armed Forces of the Senate, February 28, 1951.”

This document, in the year circa 2950, will be a precious find for any historian who may be trying then to trace the departing footprints of the vanished American Republic. For the information of the United States Senate it said (Congressional Record, March 20, 1951, p. 2745):

“As this discussion of the respective powers of the President and Congress has made clear, constitutional doctrine has been largely moulded by practical necessities. Use of the Congressional power to declare war, for example, has fallen into abeyance because wars are no longer declared in advance.”

Caesar might have said it to the Roman Senate. If constitutional doctrine is moulded by necessity, what is a written Constitution for?

Thus an argument that seemed at first to rest upon puerile reasoning turned out to be deep and cunning. The immediate use of it was to defend the unconstitutional Korean precedent, namely, the resort to war as an act of the president’s own will. Yet it was not invented for that purpose alone. It stands as a forecast of executive intentions, a manifestation of the executive mind, mortal challenge to the parliamentary principle. The simple question is: Whose hand shall control the instrument of war? It is late to ask. It may be too late, for when the hand of the Republic begins to relax another hand is already putting itself forth.

Notes

Garet Garrett (1878–1954) was an American journalist and author who was noted for his critiques of the New Deal and US involvement in the Second World War. See his books in the Mises Store. See his article archives. Comment on the blog.

This article was originally published as “The Decline of the American Republic” in The Freeman, February 25, 1952.

Very interesting article by Charley Reese on guns and freedom.

——————————-

Niccolò Machiavelli, who was a sort of Karl Rove of his day, though with more integrity, said of the Swiss that they were “the most free and most armed people” of Europe. Get it? The connection between arms and freedom?

That statement is still true of the Swiss. Many people know that they practice neutrality, but not many know that they practice armed neutrality. If the gun controllers’ claim that the mere presence of arms leads to mayhem were true, the Swiss would have wiped themselves out years ago. There are guns and gun ranges all over the place. You would be hard-pressed to find a Swiss home without a firearm and ammunition. Yet, the Swiss have a very low crime rate.

If you were a robber or a rapist, who would you rather have as a victim? Someone who is armed, or someone who is defenseless? Even a stupid criminal knows the answer to that question.

If the police can protect us – which is another claim the gun-control people make – then why are so many people murdered, raped and robbed? Even the television fictional stories tell you the answer to that. The cops get there after the crime has been committed. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a crime scene. Nearly all the cop shows open with the police looking at a dead, unarmed body.

Do you really believe that the men who had just fought a long and bloody war against the British and were writing what we call the Bill of Rights had this conversation:

“Well, let’s see. We’ve guaranteed freedom of assembly, of religion, of speech and of the press. Oh, my gosh, we’ve forgotten the duck hunters. They’ll raise heck if we leave them out, so we’d better write an amendment for them.”

The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting. It states: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The men who wrote these amendments were pretty darn fluent in English. If they had intended the right to keep and bear arms to apply only to the militia, they would have said so. They would have written “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to arm their respective militias shall not be infringed.”

They didn’t say that. The main sentence says “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” “People” means everybody, not just the members of the militia. The subordinate clause, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” just gives one, but not the only, reason why all the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The militia, after all, was drawn from the people. It was not the Army. The first meaning of “bear,” by the way, is to carry, bring or take. Americans have the right to keep arms and to carry them.

The word “regulate” in those days meant trained, and do you notice again the connection between arms and freedom? The subordinate clause refers to a “free state.” Obviously, an unfree state would not allow the people to be armed.

The Founding Fathers were not urban neurotics like so many of today’s politicians. They were almost all outdoor people. Guns were to them just tools, like their axes or plows. You couldn’t survive in the wilderness without firearms, and at the time of our Revolution, there were only about 3 million people from Maine to Georgia.

Nor were there any police forces. There was no Secret Service, FBI or any of the other alphabet law-enforcement agencies. If you decided to travel, you traveled at your own risk, and you can bet people traveled armed. When I was last at Williamsburg, Va., they had a room in one of the historical houses arranged as if a traveler had just arrived and unpacked. There on top of a dresser was a pistol.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese463.html

Constitution? What constitution?

If you are a member of the Lions Club, there is a constitution that empowers the leaders to act for and in the name of the members. The members, by joining, empower the elected leadership to act in that manner. The members agree to the constitution. No one is forced to join such a club, and indeed, one must be selected by a current member to join, I believe. It is a privileged status. The same goes for many other clubs. One is invited to join such clubs as the Knights of Columbus, Rotary International, etc. They are exclusive clubs. Members of those clubs promise to conduct themselves outside the club in a manner that is acceptable to most of Society. I say most of Society, because the Society of murderers, rapists, muggers, thugs, and many members of Congress are a small percentage of the general Society, and their actions are not acceptable to the rest of us.
(more…)

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Recent events not only with the current healthcare bill, but also on the economic front are waking up more and more Americans to the sad truth that the federal government is out of control. A fascist state is quickly developing in America, one of the few rare places in the history of the planet where “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was not an unattainable dream but instead a mission statement. I first fully grasped where the misguided actions and ideology of the Republocrats would lead America during the Banker Bailout of 2008, and I returned home to fight against the Establishment by running for United States Congress as soon as I could.
(more…)

This series addresses the War on Terror. While my stances on both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are very clear, in this piece I will propose what to do with Guantanamo Bay and its prisoners.  In Part 1, I explained the history of Guantanamo for knowing its history is key to understanding what should be done with this military base.  In this piece,  I will dissect a recent editorial published in the local newspaper by the incumbent Congressman and then propose my solutions on how to handle Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Following this, no current discussion on terror would be complete without discussing the controversial body scanning and I will add my comments and solutions on airline safety. The last part will summarize border security and just how dangerous the war on terror is – not only to our soldiers who risk their lives everyday and avoiding financial ruin as a country, but also to our liberties as a free society.          (more…)

Enjoy!

Fight the Power,

Nicholas (aka Dare)

Two excellent articles by both Ron Paul and David Kretzmann.

I would like to add just a bit more history on coinage.  The Romans in ancient times needed more money to grow the size of their government but there was only so much gold and silver.  They started cutting off the corners of their coins then melting the corners into new coins thereby increasing the number of coins in circulation.  Of course people did not like this so small ridges were added to the edge of the coins.  Our higher denomination coins (dimes, quarters, etc.) still carry these imprinted ridges called “reeding”.  Reeding was imprinted onto the coins to indicate that the coin had not been clipped.

Not only did the Romans clip the coins, but that also added base metals to the coins.  These metals diluted the value of the coin, and also produced more coins.  This is why we have the term “debasing” today.  Of course this debasing is simply another form of inflation.

So you can see that civilization has been seeking monetary ways to grow government for a long time!

“… There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9-14)

“It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C.S. Lewis

“In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson, from the Virginia Resolution of 1798

Last month both the House and Senate passed two very dissimilar bills with the same purpose – to tax the American people around $900 billion more, and intervene government bureaucrats into the private lives of each man, woman, and child. Congress is currently working out the differences, my prediction is that the bill will be quite the Frankenstein after the pork is added.

As I painstakingly laid out in my health care plank last summer, its unintended consequences will worsen the quality of care and affordability of health care.  I believe the TRUE issue at stake is affordability and cost - if an MRI cost $200 instead of $3,000, it would be a lot less imperative to suggest  drastic changes like socialized medicine.  The TRUE root cause is government-sponsored insurance cartels and quality-depleting, cost-increasing legislation such as the HMO Act of 1973.  After all, President Nixon was told “all the incentives [of HMOs] are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make and all the incentives run the right way.”
(more…)

“We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms.  One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns.” — Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s Reichminister of Propaganda

Throughout time, governments have strong tendencies to simultaneously splurge on both domestic spending and the more sinister business of warfare. This is referred to as the “guns versus butter” economic model. “Butter” is synonymous with domestic spending, while “guns” is synonymous with military spending. As with any economic goods or services, there is always scarcity of labor, machines, raw materials, land, et cetera. Individuals find it very easy to understand that if you want to spend 100% of one’s resources on “butter,” no “guns” can be purchased or vice versa; there is always a trade-off.  Steel can be formed into either a refrigerator or a tank; it can not be used for both.
(more…)