Destitute in our own liberty, we can only bare our naivete. In stubborn ignorance we have allowed the government to circumvent their own laws. Not illegal, yet unethical. The laws by which they enacted have become the very stay of their governance. In their own liberty, they will subject us to mere servitude.
Have we become blind to the actions of our government? Which branch of government is in charge? Will one banter for control of the other? Only history can answer these questions. I will try to lay out my views on the politics of the day.
Let us first, discuss the different branches of our Federal government. The Executive branch is that of the President and his subordinate staff. The Legislative branch would be that of the House and the Senate. Then there is the Judicial branch, where the Supreme Court explains and applies the laws.
The Executive branch of the Government has the President, Vice President, and all the cabinet members. Through the Constitution, the President is granted certain duties. Of these duties, there are five granted with authority. 1) Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. 2) Has authority to require written reports from the Cabinet departments. 3) Make treaties with foreign nations. 4) Appoint officials of the United States. 5) Uphold and enforce the laws, and make recommendations as needed. These seem to be quite clear, and concise. Though some might try to subvert the Constitution, the duties are set and legitimized.
The Legislative branch consists of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. When both houses convene, they become Congress. This branch writes the bills, which will become enacted into legislation. Legislation can be as simple as that of a mere majority. Once voted upon by Congress, the legislation is sent to the President for signature. The President will then approve or set veto to bill. Seemingly a matter of clear conscience.
The Judicial branch explains and applies the laws, where needed. The Supreme Court is the presiding authority of our court system. This court has nine Justices, one being that of Chief Justice. Together they hear and apply decision on such matters. The Constitution allows for their review and application of legislation. Fair enough.
Together, these branches have molded our nation to its current state. Each one, at times overstepping the constitutional boundaries. One branch negating the authority of the other. The system of "checks and balances" have become more a source of compromise. Behind closed doors they have squandered and pilfered the legitimacy of the Constitution and the "Bill of Rights". The Federal government has become that of "Quid Pro Quo".
Is this the strategy of our Founders? Would they have agreed with our political status? Was this what they had in mind? Or, is this what they fervently warned us against? It was William Penn that stated,
"Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them... Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad... But if men be bad, the government will never be good." That seems to be a thorough explanation of our state.
There can be only one explanation to our state of affairs. There seems to be a power struggle within our government. It can easily be seen and felt. If measures are not taken to avoid such matters, we can only expect the worst. As history will show, the different branches have shown that of discord to the others. We are not the first nation to become agitated in such affairs. The Romans, Ottomans, and even the Soviets saw vast changes in their governments as the dissolution raged.
The abounding signs of revolution from within, can be expected. The standing government will become that of a chaotic being. Not chaos in the sense of violence, yet that of unorganized measures. I suspect that the President's speech to the various UN agencies can elude to nothing more than an alliance of protection from such chaos. Congress has shown its discourse through various committee reviews on the Presidential agenda. In explanation of these reviews, the committees have compromised the bills to that of an illusion of the original.
I am not saying there will be violent revolution. Though there is a chance of a change in how our government convenes authority. There is also a distinct possibility of seeing certain branches or individuals with more "Authoritarian" powers. It doesn't matter how it happens. It is the idea of such drastic change that causes such discord.
I can only surmise as to the assumption of such cause. Will I be proven wrong? I hope that the proof is shown. Can this be stopped? Will the people stand strong on their authority? These questions need answers. Who will ask these questions, and how? My final question, "Will these questions be answered, and by whom?"
It must be remembered that "Revolution" is a founding result in change. It is not necessarily a violent act. It has been effective in different ways throughout history. When mentioning this in reference to government it is only pertaining to that of change. I know that this writing will be scrutinized by readers. It is only asked that you give full reverence to the total opinion. We don't have to agree, but give heed to opinion. For one's opinion may give reason for the greater good.
In closing I will quote John Adams:
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!"