The Congressional Oversight Act

August 10, 2010 by mattbenchener 1 Comment

This post was written by Edward Mahee. Writing under a pen name, Mr. Mahee is a legal analyst and political commentator. This is his eleventh posting for the site.

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution reads, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”  Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution lays out the process by which such legislative power is properly exercised by Congress.  Over time, however, Congress has abrogated this authority to make laws and given it to a number of federal agencies.  Initially created to administer federal programs or provide oversight, these agencies have quickly evolved into powerful law and policy makers.  The Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Internal Revenue Service, and the Treasury Department are just a few examples of the vast bureaucracy that now runs the federal government, and their rule making has become as important as the laws crafted by elected representatives.

As a result of this framework, Americans have been bombarded with a barrage of agency laws and regulations, each a creeping infringement not just of individual liberty, but of democracy itself.  Frequently, we hear of an agency, sometimes famous, sometimes faceless, making rules which affect everything from the food we eat and the cars we drive, to how our children are educated. And yet, no citizen has ever cast a vote for a bureaucrat.

How is it, in a country that is supposed to be free and self-governing, that the representative legislature has abandoned its responsibility to govern?  More poignantly, how have bureaucrats, who are isolated from elections and unaccountable to voters, been given the power to regulate nearly every aspect of our lives? The Environmental Protection Agency plans to regulate Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant (meaning that every time you exhale you’re polluting) and the Federal Communication Commission plans to regulate the Internet in the name of “fairness” (as determined by a bureaucrat or judge). How were the underpinnings of democracy—representation and accountability—swept away so easily?

Simply put, because many have embraced the faulty progressive message that experts and administrators are better equipped to run society than are a free people. That thinking has brought untold destruction over the years, both to efficiency and liberty, a terrible catalogue of the price paid when freedom is sacrificed at the altar of statist hubris. America was founded as a Republic, a representative democracy established to reflect, and defend the will of its people. Agency rule pulls far from the founding by allowing the elite few to govern the whole.

The solution to this problem seems distant—federal bureaucracies are so entrenched that curtailing their power appears impossible.  But there is a way Congress can work to reestablish its rightful place as the only law-making body in the federal system.  It would not require the abolition of any agency, or any immediate dismantlement of the system. Rather, Congress could simply pass a law—call it the Congressional Oversight Act—which would state that no rule, regulation, or order of an administrative agency shall have the force of law unless it has been approved by an act of Congress.  Moreover, the Congressional Oversight Act would prohibit Congress from approving agency rules in bulk, or omnibus resolutions.  Thus, the Congressional Oversight Act would compel Congress to consider each rule, regulation, or order on its own merits. 

The obvious retort is that it would be impossible for Congress to consider each agency rule or regulation; it would take too much time.  But that is precisely the point.  Congress would only consider substantive regulations, and those that were not substantive would not become law.  This would serve three functions: First, it would enable Congress to reassert its Constitutional role as the sole lawmaker, and compel its members to be true legislators (as opposed to mere delegators of authority); Second, administrative agencies would have to be selective in their rulemaking, proposing only substantive regulations that would stand up to public scrutiny and accountability; and Third, the Congressional Oversight Act would allow for a clear accounting of each agency.  That is, if agencies themselves are not proven totally ineffective, wasteful, and bureaucratic.

Overall, this plan would reduce the power of unaccountable bureaucrats over the lives of the citizenry. And as their power diminishes, our freedom will increase.  And, in the “land of the free” that is ultimately the point.

-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , ,

May You Live In Interesting Times

July 7, 2010 by mattbenchener 1 Comment

This post was written by Edward Mahee. Writing under a pen name, Mr. Mahee is a legal analyst and political commentator. This is his tenth posting for the site.

Many people have heard the phrase, “May you live in interesting times.”  It is often said to be an English translation of a Chinese curse. Irrespective of its linguistic origins, its character as a curse is not hard to imagine.  Interesting times are the times and events that make for interesting reading and study. 

Consider American history.  The country is full of Civil War “buffs,” amateur historians from all walks of life, who may be found talking for hours about General Stuart’s role in the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg.  And just when you think there is nothing new to write about regarding the Civil War, dozens of new books are published on the subject every year.  Why? Because it was an enormously interesting time in American history, where 620,000 people died, dozens of cities were destroyed, and whole sections of the country were laid to waste. 

Conversely, very few books or amateur historians can be found discussing the United States, circa 1890.  Why? Because it was boring.  It was boring because the country was humming along, and peace and prosperity reigned as a general rule.  That doesn’t make for great reading, but the people who lived through it certainly would have preferred peaceful, prosperous and boring, to action-packed, interesting and dangerous.

It is clear that the American people are living in most interesting times.  Everyday we hear about the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, persistent unemployment of nearly 10%, ongoing economic malaise, political corruption, and an ever increasing debt which will soon exceed our GDP (and according to Kevin D. Williamson of National Review, total public debt including national, state, municipal debt and other unfunded liabilities may exceed GDP by 10 fold).  Much has been said concerning the nature of these issues and to what extent blame needs to be placed at the door step of the man who presently sits in the Oval Office.  That I will leave to others.

There is, however, a larger point that needs to be made.  It is when times are interesting that we begin to hear the loud cries from progressives for the need for more active and more powerful government in order to solve problems.  We heard that message from President Obama during his recent Oval Office speech, in which he argued that the occurrence of the oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon platform suggests that Congress must implement a heavy handed, top-down, tax and spend green energy plan.  One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.  Congress and the President can raise all of the taxes in the world, we can all go back to living in caves, and the oil will still flow.

It is when times are interesting that people begin to realize that there are limits to the things government can do.  Just like King Canute could not command the tides, President Obama cannot command the oil to stop flowing, jobs to be created, new things to be invented, or the economy to fix itself.  It is when times are interesting that individuals must realize the government cannot do everything.  We need to look to ourselves, our choices, our markets and our freedom to clean up the mess, punish irresponsible companies and employ people in productive enterprises.  King Canute’s experiment with the tides proved his point; his power is not complete and absolute.  Today’s progressives would do well to heed the same lesson.

The present may be fraught with challenges, but it is also pregnant with opportunities.  When people realize that though the government can and ought to do a few things, it is far from competent to do anything and everything.  That is the moment when people look to their families, communities, associations (large and small) and themselves to handles crises, support each other, and provide the foundation for what is good in this world.  Perhaps in these interesting times we may again capture that spirit and make tomorrow less interesting than today.

-Edward Mahee for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Other

The State of Our Union: Progress Vs. Change

January 28, 2010 by mattbenchener Leave a Comment

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 1/31/10, and the Bucks County Courier Times on 2/14/10. You can read the online version here from The Bulletin, or catch the print column each week.

Just over a year ago, America witnessed the historic inauguration of its new leader. While only 53% of the country cast its vote for him, the vast majority saw promise in his fresh vision—his early approval ratings (70% positive – Gallup) made him nearly transcendent. It was clear most were willing to give his “Change” a chance.

A year later, the tide has turned.  President Obama’s approval rating stands at a paltry 47% (Gallup), and the number of Americans who strongly disapprove of his performance now outnumber those who strongly approve by a 15 point margin (Rasmussen). The country repudiated the Democratic agenda by overturning Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts in landmark elections since his inauguration, and support for his signature healthcare legislation is on life support.

In a telling moment, President Obama highlighted this dramatic shift in his recent State of the Union address: “I campaigned on the promise of change—change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change—or at least, that I can deliver it.” He’s right.

America was ready to embrace change, and the President’s historically high approval rating was a signal of a frustrated citizenry. The country was ready to follow a bipartisan leader; it wanted healing from years of tired political battles. It wanted to put an end to part-time conservatism, where government cut taxes but spent wildly and grew institutional bureaucracy. It saw the coming wave of Recession, and asked for a government that fostered economic health. It wanted fiscal responsibility, to reverse the fastest eight-year deficit growth in U.S. history. It wanted a government that focused less on divisive social issues and more on practical reform. It was ready to follow, ready to change, ready to champion responsible, prudent governance—it desperately wanted an inspirational, unifying leader to guide the nation forward.

But change for change’s sake is not Progress. Progress, woven into the fabric of American prosperity, must be built on the right foundation. In America, that foundation was forged of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty. At a time when the country was starving for a new leader to embrace these principles, to unify rather than divide, and to address the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, aggressive liberal policies advanced through hardball partisan tactics represented Change, but not Progress.

It appears President Obama and the Democratic leadership may be waking up to the consequences of the past year. Rhetoric following Scott Brown’s election, and highlighted in the President’s State of the Union address, suggest the party will pivot to focus on job creation and the economy. It will likely temper its agenda until the election cycle has passed, proposing moderate spending freezes and scaled back reforms. But until it offers the American people the right kind of change—progress—it will have lost them.

As we begin 2010 and examine the state of our Union, we must focus on a simple plan for success. First, government should not spend more than it has—leveraged debt creates long-term financial insecurity and mortgages our future. It’s time we get spending under control. To that end, Congress should implement a pay-as-you go system, where all spending increases must be met by commensurate cuts. The administration should return the hundreds of billions of unused stimulus dollars, cut government bureaucracy by at least 10%, and set a goal to reduce discretionary spending until the budget is balanced.

As government controls its costs, it can work to return money to taxpayers. The capital gains tax should be lowered to under 10% to help spur investment, income tax rates should be lowered and flattened across the board to encourage spending, and the double-taxation of corporations should be eliminated to make our businesses more competitive. Less government and unleashed capitalism will create jobs and grow the economy.

Practical reforms to healthcare should be enacted to help lower costs and thus increase access. Tort reform should be a must—caps on malpractice rewards would reduce unnecessary defensive medicine and shrink the cost for malpractice insurance, which in turn would have the dual effect of increasing the quality of doctors and reducing overall costs. The insurance industry should reflect a free market with transparent prices, portability, and open competition.

Given the complexity of our times, there is much more work to be done, this is just a starting point. But whatever the work, whatever the change, it must be Progress. Progress built on a foundation of fundamental Constitutional values, standing on the shoulders of what has always made us great. Because no matter the President or majority party, the state of our Union has always been the belief that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness did not happen by accident—they were a product of Progress, not wholesale Change.

-Matt Benchener is Founder of TruPolitics.net and Supervisor of Newtown Township.

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , , ,

Happy Holidays

December 23, 2009 by mattbenchener 1 Comment

TruPolitics.net wishes you happy holidays! Thank you all for your support throughout the year. Through your dedication and involvement, the site has had over 12,000 hits in just 10 months, been featured in numerous publications, and has helped forward political discourse.

Heading into 2010, expect weekly columns and podcasts (the site’s newest, upcoming addition). We’ll be back in action with a post early next week–possibly in the wake of a healthcare overhaul (an early present, or a lump of coal from Democrats?). Until then, enjoy the break, and stay informed!

Filed under Other

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

November 28, 2009 by mattbenchener Leave a Comment

This post was written by guest author Saylor Smith. Mr. Smith was and educator for over 40 years and is the author of two novels. He currently resides in Eugene, Oregon. This is his third posting for the site.

I believe it is a hopeful sign that patriotic Americans of the Right and of the Left are debating the relative merits of the conservative and liberal political philosophies. There are wide disparities between these philosophies that are worth examining. However, our country has become so large and so complex that the truth is that neither philosophy is “Correct” for every situation and, in a real sense, both philosophies are “Correct” for some situations. President Obama’s recent speech to American students was full of so-called “conservative” values (work hard, stay in school); I would posit that those are American values, embraced equally by conservative and liberal thinkers.

Conservatives and liberals — no, American conservatives and liberals — live in the same challenging world and see that world from similar perspectives; they seek security in their towns and cities; safe, productive schools; equality of opportunity; jobs for all who are willing and able to work; and a comfortable place to call home. We all agree on those vital areas of existence; we fight the conservative/liberal battle, then, on the margins.

I believe the central question is not large government vs. small government. After all, during “conservative” President George W. Bush’s eight years in office the federal government expanded, whereas during “liberal” President Bill Clinton’s eight-year tenure, the government contracted. The main question each political philosophy attempts to answer is: What role should the federal government play in guaranteeing to its citizens the freedoms outlined in the Constitution?

A simple way to examine the question is to consider the Four Freedoms President Franklin Roosevelt proposed as fundamental for all peoples:

1. Freedom of speech and expression

2. Freedom of religion

3. Freedom from want

4. Freedom from fear

Certainly, we would expect our elected officials to stand firmly in support of those values. However, should we expect them to take concerted action — to pass legislation, for example — as part of their “duties” to the people? A liberal might give a knee-jerk “Yes” answer to that question, and a conservative might give a knee-jerk “No” response.

The liberal sees the government’s representatives as fulfilling their duties by actively assuring those freedoms (passing minimum wage laws, for example, to protect people from want and fear, or passing laws to regulate the actions of large corporations when those actions threaten the safety and security of the people). The conservative sees the government’s representatives as putting up roadblocks to true freedom when they take such action (the conservative suggests letting the free market set wage limits, and he or she argues consistently for de-regulation of corporate America). For most intents and purposes, a liberal sees the government as “us,” while a conservative sees the government as “them.”

We are all of us freedom-loving Americans; it is part of the very fabric of our being as a people. As such, we have to respect and, indeed, honor the conservative’s uncompromising belief in the value of freedom. And each liberal has to recognize, accept and embrace that conservative value in him- or herself. Too, we are a compassionate, generous people; the conservative should honor that value in his or her liberal friends and accept and embrace it in him- or herself.

Each issue we face, especially the tough ones — gun control, healthcare reform, energy regulations, abortion — demands reasoned, honest judgment on the part of each of our representatives. “What,” he or she must ask, “is best for the people of my district, state and nation?” If a law promises to make life safer, freer or less fearful for Americans, the legislator is obligated by his or her allegiance to the most basic principles of the U.S. Constitution, to give it careful consideration, neither rubber-stamping nor rejecting it based on “left” or “right” ideology.

We live in confounding times. Too many people argue that there are no verities, that all “truth” is relative. Surely that is not the case. Surely, there are decisions we can make and actions we can take that are based, very simply, on what is right. Let us all, conservatives, liberals and independents, come together in a determined search for what is, in the end, right.

-Guest author Saylor Smith for TruPolitics.net

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , ,

Back From the Road

November 24, 2009 by mattbenchener Leave a Comment

After a brief hiatus, TruPolitics.net will be back in action later this week. The past 3 months were some of the busiest, most stressful, and most impactful of my life. If you’ve been following along, I was blessed with the opportunity to run for office—Supervisor of Newtown Township in Pennsylvania. Our township does not have the typical Mayor – City Council structure. Instead, we have a board of five Supervisors that act in both a legislative and executive capacity. We decide on such things as the budget, taxes, zoning, and all local government services administration.

Through hard work, God’s grace, and the support of so many dedicated volunteers, I won the election (you can read some accounts from the election in previous posts). Now, back from the road, we’ll be gearing back up at TruPolitics.net to bring rational discourse and a fresh perspective to the political landscape.

In addition to the normal postings, there will also be a weekly podcast. The podcast will review the week in politics, and give the TruPolitics.net take on the most salient issues. The podcast will launch in approximately three weeks, and will be posted through this site and iTunes. And remember, the “Must Read Articles” section is updated throughout each week with key reads from around the nation.

As always, TruPolitics.net finds its greatest success in the exchange between readers. If we hope to restore our nation to responsible governance built on the founding principles which have always made America great, we must be willing to engage in critical conversations of policy and ideas. It starts with you, and it can start here. Thank you all for your continued support.

-Matt Benchener, founder and editor of TruPolitics.net

Filed under Other Tagged with ,

Make Principled Leadership a Reality

October 20, 2009 by mattbenchener 1 Comment

This article was featured in the Bucks County Courier Times on 10/20/09. To learn more about the election cited in this article, visit www.Benchener09.com.

Over the past few months I’ve had the opportunity to do something incredible: Run for office. I have always been passionate about politics, and spent my undergraduate years at Johns Hopkins studying the intricacies of political science and government philosophy. I’m comfortable debating nearly every form of political theory, from taxes and judicial review to economic policy.

That type of intellectual rigor is important, and forms the underpinning for effective governance, but running for Newtown Township Supervisor has taught me that it’s only part of the equation. To truly understand those you seek to serve, you need to meet them face to face.Matt Benchener 09

An essential part of any local campaign is door knocking. It sounds miserable—knock on 3,500 doors in a matter of two months. If you’re doing the math, that’s close to 15 hours a week pounding the pavement; I lost 10 pounds in the first two weeks of the campaign. My new fad diet—“Running for Office”—would rival the South Beach or Atkins diets.

Though the process has been physically taxing, I’ve been able to meet thousands of passionate voters in a short period of time. What has happened is a profound grounding of theory into reality.

Early on, I knocked on the door of a senior citizen. I introduced myself, assuring him I was not a salesman, and said, “I want to fight for fiscal responsibility to ensure we are using every dollar wisely. With so much government waste and overspending, a tax increase is simply unacceptable.” The man grabbed my arm, pulled me inside (it happens more than you’d think), looked me in the eyes and said with deep sincerity, “Thank goodness. I’m on a fixed income and I can’t afford higher taxes. I’m barely making it as is. Keep up the hard work.”

Suddenly, theoretical debates about tax policy, small government, and fiscal prudence became one man’s reality. A tax increase would literally threaten his quality of life. I heard countless stories like his—lost jobs, pay cuts, rising bills.

When I spoke with citizens about my vision to limit overdevelopment and maintain our distinct township character, I heard stories about overcrowding in schools, gridlock downtown, and the loss of our precious natural land to developers. They desperately wanted someone to fight back against the development that had begun to erode our township.

When I told people about my desire to remake the culture of government, eliminating waste and demanding accountability, I heard things like, “That’s my money you’re fighting for—keep it up,” and “We need fresh blood to shake things up; government shouldn’t act like it has a blank check to our money.”

And that is when political theory becomes reality. Fiscal responsibility matters because government debt becomes our debt. Overspending leads to tax increases, and tax increases mean government is taking more of our hard earned money. Elected officials should demand efficiency and accountability, spending only what they must and always seeking to maximize returns. “Oversight” should be removed from our vocabulary; a frivolous use of taxpayer money should be unacceptable. Taxpayers deserve nothing less.

Zoning decisions and bouts with developers affect the roads we drive on, the homes we live in, and the schools our children attend. They should be made with prudence and with long-term perspective, with full realization of the impact on our communities. The rights of property owners should be respected, and we must aggressively pursue open space to ease the burden on our communities. Citizens deserve nothing less.

Politics matters. Local government matters. The people we elect have a responsibility to lead with integrity, foresight, and passion. Voters deserve nothing less.

Running for office is the hardest thing I’ve ever done. But in the midst of campaign strategy, partisan attacks, and endless debates, I’ve been reenergized by one thing: The thousands of people I looked in the eyes are starving for committed, principled, and focused leadership. Our political theory is their day-to-day reality.

This November 3rd, let your voice be heard. Demand excellence from your representatives—this year, it can start locally. It’s time to make principled leadership a reality.

-Matt Benchener, Founder of TruPolitics.net and Candidate for Newtown Township Supervsior (learn more at www.Benchener09.com).

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , ,

Starting at Home

October 3, 2009 by mattbenchener Leave a Comment

Matt BenchenerI’m passionate about the founding principles which have always made our nation successful. I believe that principles of fiscal prudence, limited government, and personal responsibility are important at all levels of government. If we hope to carry our country to long-term prosperity, we’ll need to fight hard to maintain our unique American identity of liberty and self-reliance. That’s why I decided to run for Supervisor of Newtown Township–I believe leadership starts at the local level. As I’m out on the campaign trail, here are some excerpts from my campaign blog, my vision for Newtown:

For more information visit www.Benchener09.com

1. Imagine a Newtown where government treated taxpayer money as if it were their families’. There would never be wasteful spending. There would never be projects for political purposes. There would never be a dollar spent recklessly.

A wise family constantly reviews its budget, focuses on long-term goals, and controls its consumption. It does not spend more than it has, and it approaches each purchase with prudence. Families all across the country are evaluating every dollar they spend, working to save in a difficult economic environment. We need leaders who will do the same.

In Newtown, this means saving during times of prosperity to prepare for times of scarcity. There should always be a budget surplus, wisely invested, and aggressively protected. This also means evaluating each budget item or project to ensure all money is being used efficiently. If we treat every dollar as if it is our own, then waste will not be tolerated. A $10,000 “oversight” is unacceptable. A $10,000 savings is celebrated.

Taxpayers entrust their hard earned money to government every day. They deserve to have that money used wisely. That is my commitment to you.

2. Imagine a Newtown where we celebrated our township’s distinct character and beauty. Newtown has always been known for its historic roots, small town charm, and natural landscape. We should embrace that legacy.

That means we aggressively pursue open space, holding on to the natural beauty that defines our region. That also means we limit high-density housing, helping stave off overcrowding, booming traffic, and the growing burden on our schools.

All townships must embrace progress, but progress must always respect precedent. For Newtown, that means we can renew Sycamore Street, partnering with State Street to create a thriving downtown environment. It’s time we take action on the Acme site, and create a vision for a core part of our township. Perhaps we invite in cafes, high-end retail, or an organic food store. No matter what, it should all be done with an eye toward the make-up, character, and design of our historic township.

People often tell me that, in many ways, they love Newtown for it’s not: Big city; overdeveloped; crowded. We should preserve what’s best about our township, and fight to hold onto our unique identity. That is my commitment to you.

3. Imagine a Newtown where long-term financial prosperity was a driver of decision making, not simply an outcome. Sustained financial security does not happen by accident, it requires careful planning and foresight.

Our township faces significant strains to the budget over the next few years. Pension payouts, road resurfacing, and costs for some big ticket spending items (Woll Tract; Municipal Complex) will weigh heavily on the township books. Combined with declining revenues from the battered economy, this is a critical time for our budget and community. It requires swift and prudent action.

If we hope to keep taxes low, we’ll need to remake our budgetary process based on proven financial principles. We need strict budget prioritization – every dollar spent must be justified and weighed appropriately. We need financial forecasting – accurate projections of where we are headed will allow us to prepare for the tough times. We need accountability – if a department or project is coming in over budget, we need to hear from those responsible. “Oversight” should be removed from our vocabulary.

Most of all, we need to remember whose money we are spending. Taxpayers work hard for each dollar they give to government, and the prosperity of the community depends on careful use of that money. That is my commitment to you.

-Matt Benchener is the founder of TruPolitics.net and the Republican candidate for Newtown Township Supervisor.

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , , ,

Liberalism and Feudalism

August 6, 2009 by mattbenchener Leave a Comment

TruPolitics.net is proud to welcome writer Edward Mahee. Mr. Mahee boasts an extensive legal background, and is an emerging conservative thinker. Expect articles from Mr. Mahee every other week. This is his third posting for the site.

Since the beginning of its movement in the late 19th century, liberal thought has claimed to be progressive, forwarding thinking, and innovative. Its proponents state that humanity can achieve greater prosperity by embracing new solutions to age-old problems. As Barack Obama said during last year’s presidential campaign, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”  More poignantly, Hubert Humphrey once noted that, “Liberalism, above all, means emancipation – emancipation from one’s fears, his inadequacies, from prejudice, from discrimination, from poverty.”

When observing liberalism in practice, however, what surfaces is not a philosophy of innovation and change. Rather, it becomes increasingly clear that liberalism is simply a reiteration of tried and failed ideals, which may explain its inability to accomplish its stated goal.Medieval Feudalism

At this point you may be saying, “Come on Mahee, get a grip.  We’ve already been over liberalism as socialism or liberalism as soft totalitarianism.  It’s not liberalism that is rehashing old ideas, it’s you.”  And that I understand.  The truth, however, is that liberalism is not simply a reiteration of socialism or totalitarianism.  Rather, liberalism’s antecedents can be found in feudalism.

Feudalism was a method of societal organization which had its apogee in medieval Europe and Japan.  While there were many variations of feudalism, the basic structure was as follows:  On the top of society was the king; below him was his retinue of barons; below them were knights, below them were yeoman (free peasants); and below them were the serfs (peasants tied to the land on which they lived and worked).

The hallmark of any feudal society was a system of two-way obligations of payment and fealty in exchange for protection.  In other words, a serf owed his lord taxes, labor and obedience, all in exchange for his lord’s protection.  The same was true for knights with barons and barons with the king. Of course, these mutual obligations were not of equal value. When a serf was dependent on the noble lord for protection, the serf lived at the mercy of his lord, and the lord ultimately lived at the mercy of the king. 

The basic principal underlying feudalism was that ordinary people were incapable of governing themselves—they had to rely on the kindness of their lords to protect them and to govern them.  Ordinary people were therefore unable to live and work for themselves.  For centuries, men and women lived and died under the eye of another.  They were not free to choose to live outside the bounds of the feudal world. 

So how does modern liberalism relate to feudalism? Liberalism presents itself as a philosophy that, if applied, will free individuals from fear and want.  Under the guiding hand of a benevolent elite (in our case, a politician or government official), individuals will be protected from life’s dangers and granted a certain degree of prosperity.  

In return, of course, the elite demands support, votes, and taxes.  That is, they demand control.  Liberals, in the name of the protection and happiness of the collective, will control what one eats, how much one can save, whether or not one gets medical care, what kind of car one may drive, and where and how children are educated. A free person is useless to a liberal elite because a free person does not need to be governed.   The parallels to our current administration are exceedingly clear.

One reason America was so attractive, even before Independence, is that individuals could conduct their lives without explicit oversight and control. They could organize and govern themselves as they chose. But now, in the name of protecting people from themselves, liberals will promise you the moon if only you surrender your freedom to them.

For 100 years, liberals have been asking American citizens to surrender their freedom, all the while ridiculing those who resists for their “lack of compassion” or “selfishness.”  The time has come for Americans to decide that our natural born rights as free people be respected. Otherwise, we will continue to surrender our liberty to elites—as our ancestors did to their noble lords—who have convinced us that we are incapable of governing ourselves.  Liberals demand our fealty for protection.  Will we give them our fealty, or will we, as free people, say no?

-Edward Mahee from TruPolitics.net

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , ,

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Making the Same Mistake Twice

May 27, 2009 by mattbenchener 8 Comments

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 6/1/09. You can view the newspaper version here, or check out the print column every week.

Sonia SotomayorLike Barack Obama, who rose from an impoverished background to become the nation’s first African-American President, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has a powerful and inspirational life story. The daughter of immigrants, she grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx, and had to struggle through a difficult childhood without her father. Overcoming cultural and racial barriers, she went on to graduate from Princeton, and eventually from Yale Law School. Her appointment would make her the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court. In Ms. Sotomayor, President Obama likely sees a reflection of himself.

But President Obama and Judge Sotomayor share more than inspirational life stories. They share a troubling and dangerous view of jurisprudence, informed by a liberal ideology that places emotional activism ahead of rational objectivity.

When Justice Souter announced his retirement a month ago, President Obama stated that future Supreme Court justices should have “empathy” for “people’s hopes and struggles,” and work to understand “the daily realities of people’s lives—whether they can make a living and care for their families.” On Tuesday, he praised Judge Sotomayor’s “experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune…a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.” President Obama made it clear: The courts ought to be governed by empathy, and legal decisions ought to be shaped by personal experience.

Similarly, Judge Sotomayor has stated that minority judges must consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” and allow such experiences to “affect our decisions.” She later went on to say that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Like President Obama, Ms. Sotomayor’s statements shed light on her acceptance of judicial bias.

Perhaps most telling is Judge Sotomayor’s view on judicial activism: “The Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know – and I know this is on tape and I should never say that.” Her lengthy history of case law affirms this position, most notably in her now famous decision to essentially forward racial quotas in the New Haven firefighter case.

Thus, given her background and ideology, it should not be surprising that President Obama chose Judge Sotomayor as his nominee. He simply saw a reflection of himself: Inspirational life story; historic racial implications; liberal activist ideology.

As President, that ideology pulls Mr. Obama to attempt to right the perceived injustices in society through government intervention and control. As judge, that ideology pulls Ms. Sotomayor toward judicial activism and legal empathy. The first is dangerous, the latter unjust.

Judicial activism, in short, means that the courts make and shape law. When an activist court hears a case, it decides if the law in question is the right law for society, and rules accordingly. It seeks to alter or define the legal landscape.

The problem is that the creation of law is meant for the legislature. Legislators are supposed to serve as representatives of the people, and therefore work to create law that best serves their constituents. If the will or the composition of the people changes, or they do not like the law created by the legislator, citizens can affect change through elections. This is a true representative democracy.Jurisprudence

The role of the judiciary, by contrast, is to uphold and maintain the rule of law in society. It is to interpret the intent of the law as created by the legislature, and hold it to the rigorous standard of Constitutionality. That is why legislators are elected, while judges are appointed. As a result, judges are not to serve as representatives of the people, but instead as adjudicators of the law established by those representatives. This structure allows for a measured government with checks and balances, the essential framework established by our founders. Ms. Sotomayor’s activism directly threatens this balance.

The heart of Ms. Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy can be found in her regard for empathy and personal bias; a view shared closely with President Obama. When a judge begins to make decisions based on subjectivity, personal experience, or empathy, that judge ceases to be an objective arbiter. It should not matter, as Ms. Sotomayor says, that she is a Latina woman, or as President Obama says, that she comes from a difficult and diverse background. If those factors play into the decision making process, then the law has become emotional and subjective. Clearly, along with her ideological leanings, Ms. Sotomayor was chosen for her championing of such empathetic jurisprudence.

The whole of the argument is best summed up by Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference, who said, “The president has nominated a highly credentialed judge with an inspiring life story. Regrettably, he also tainted the nomination from its start by suggesting that his nominee would judge based on personal feelings and background, or be biased with empathy for particular classes of litigants.”

In Sonia Sotomayor, we see an eerie reflection of President Obama. In law, as in government, the prospects of liberal activism are both perilous and unjust—judicial restraint should not be politicized. We have already seen the damaging effects of liberal governance, and we simply cannot afford to make the same mistake twice.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts