[net.politics] Home Rule.

black@pundit.DEC (DON BLACK DTN 261-2739 MS: NIO/N13 LOC: POLE C6) (08/01/85)


>>> If a majority votes somebody into public office it is our RESPONSIBILTY
>>> to monitor their actions and to have them reflect our feelings, but with
>>> and appointed position I for one assume NO guilt for their actions. Does
>>> anybody remember James Watt for example.[--Bob Nebert--]
> 
>Ahem, but I beg to differ.  Our government is our govenment no matter how it
>gets there.  If I, or anyone else, wants to be absolved of responsibility for
>the actions of our government then I had better be involved in defining the
>policies of our government.  (I guess I'm making an assumption here... :-)
>Anything else seems to me to be, perhaps implicit, approval of the actions of
>our government.  But then that is the way of a democracy, however flawed.
>[Doug Urner]

     Lest we forget---The organization known as the "Government of the United
States"  is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a democracy.  It is generally assumed
to be comprised of three branches,ie., the Legislative, the Executive, and the
Judiciary.  These three are overseen by the fourth and supreme branch, the
PEOPLE.

     If the People fail to ride herd on the Constitutional Government, the
People very quickly lose the very freedom that we cherish.  We are given the
responsibility by our Creator to be vigilant, as outlined in the very first
Federal Law, the Declaration of Independence.  The authority to exercise
our power is in the Ninth, Tenth, and Second Amendment to the Constitution
of 1787.  Effectively, if "The Government" becomes abusive of the rights of
the citizens, we the people have the right to remove "The Government" by 
whatever means necessary.  

     It is unfortunate that various appointed bureaucrats consider themselves
to be above the law.  But it is the fault of the American People for allowing
them to do so.  For over three decades, we have tolerated bureaucracies that
derive their power from an obscure federal "law" that authorizes various
agencies to rule by fiat, simply by promulgating regulations and then publishing
such regulations in the Federal Register.  (Now that I think of it, Hitler
did something similar.)  (And the exact same thing is going on in South Africa.)

     Examples of these agencies are the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Federal Communications Commission, and
the Environmental Protection Agency.  Some, such as the F.C.C., hold public
hearings before rules are made.  Others, such as the I.R.S./B.A.T.F., are on
a power binge.  None are protected Constitutionally.  All have the power to
search, seize, fine, and jail.  

     The whole key to solving the problem is to remove the authorization for
these agencies to make regulations without legislative review.  If this puts
an undue burden on our poor overworked, underpaid Congress, the answer is
simple.  We remove the authority for controlling bureaucratic functions from
the Federal Government, and place it on the States, where most of it belongs
anyway.  Only certain functions, such as the overseeing of interstate 
commerce, the issuance of currency, certain foreign affairs, and a central
military cadre, would be retained at the federal level.  Most others, such 
as taxation, intrastate commerce, local environmental protection, labor 
laws, educational responsibilities, and a self-armed ready militia, would 
be controlled at the local level.

     Neat and simple.  The problem is that it will never come about, because
the International Power Clique can't control it.


     --Don "The Caveman" Black


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1.  I reserve the right to throw "Ad Hominem" comments at myself.

2.  The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the manage-
ment or other employees of Digital Equipment Corporation.  Ref:  US Con-
stitution of 1787, Amendment I.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^