The discontent in Western
democracies is due to their becoming less and less democratic. The
problem is increasingly arbitrary decisions governments are making supposedly
to take care of their people. Progressives world-wide seem to believe that
large segments of the population are too ignorant and stupid to make their own
decisions. This runs counter to John Locke’s basic principle that
government requires the consent of the governed.
In the US, consent of the governed is the basic principle the country was built on. John Locke first coined the phrase as part of his “Two Treatises on Government,” published in 1690 to justify replacing King James II of England with William and Mary in 1688. So it’s important in Britain as well. Consent of the governed is what allowed Parliament to legislate the Act of Settlement in 1701, which set the rule of Succession for the British Monarchy that’s still in force today.
Locke thought that government exists to preserve the life, liberty and property of each person it governs. This phrase, edited to make it more user friendly, was used in the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The chief purpose of government in Western democracies today is to regulate life, constrict liberty and redistribute property, usually without the consent of the governed.
Current US government practice is that almost all new laws that pass Congress are passed as shells, which are filled in later by regulatory agencies, executive orders and court rulings. The problem with regulations, executive orders and court decisions is that none of the processes used to make these things is designed to get the consent of the governed. Conversely, the voters can’t hold the regulatory agencies, executive departments and judges responsible for their actions. In the US, regulatory boards are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, to fixed terms of office. Judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for life terms.
While I’m not quite as clear about how things work in Europe, it appears to me that the European Union does business the same way. Most of their important policies seem to be the result of regulatory agencies or court decisions. Voters don’t get to hold the decision makers accountable.
Bypassing legislatures makes the flow of new regulations arbitrary and largely unpredictable. What are, in effect, laws come out of murky processes in back rooms at regulatory agencies or government executive departments. Then they are subject to review in the courts where the decisions are also hard to predict. The process is like a ping pong match, and the ball bounces around with almost no attempt to gain the consent of the people who will bear the burden of the new rules. The chaotic nature of regulatory processes inhibits long term private sector investment. You’re not going to invest in something which takes 5 or 10 years to pay off if it could be regulated out of existence in 3 to 6 months.
In the US, we have an especially virulent form of this chaos called the “Living Constitution.” Most people probably think that the Constitution is like a contract. The meaning of a contract is fixed when the contract is signed. So logically, the meaning of the Constitution or a Constitutional Amendment should be fixed at the time it’s ratified. The “Living Constitution” doctrine says that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time, based on changing modern conditions. This works out as an excuse to alter the Constitution in the Supreme Court by finding new meaning in the Constitution to suit progressive fashion. In the past, Justices had to decide based on what the law or the Constitution said, whether they like it or not. Now Justices can decide cases based on what they would like the law to be.
The president wields almost all of the power of the modern regulatory state in the US. He or she issues executive orders, in effect controls all regulatory agencies and appoints all judges, including Supreme Court Justices. The appointment of “Living Constitution” Justices was extremely important to the left. Because of Antonin Scalia’s death and the age and ill health of 2 or 3 other Justices, whoever won 2016 was going to be decisive in deciding whether the “Living Constitution” doctrine prevailed or not. The normal ways to change the Constitution require 3/4ths of the States to ratify an amendment. Since Republicans control both legislative chambers in 32 states, that isn’t going to happen for progressives. Their only shot at big changes was cheating with a “Living Constitution” in the Supreme Court. That’s why Trump published a list of 21 judges he would consider appointing to the Supreme Court. All of them were original meaning judges, not “Living Constitution” judges. This list gave conservative Republicans, like me, the confidence to vote for Trump no matter how bad his manners were. Voting for Hillary would have erased the Constitution by allowing it to be completely redefined.
President Obama was especially energetic in concentrating as much power as possible into the Oval Office. Obama used his pen and phone without restraint in his second term to avoid having to deal with Republicans in Congress. He created precedents that were safe only if Hillary Clinton succeeded him. The Democrats went all in, betting that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016 and secure Obama’s legacy.
What happened was a Trump victory. All of the pen and phone power Obama concentrated in the Oval Office will be used to undo the entire hope and change of the last 8 years. Trump will make at least two Supreme Court appointments. The Justices Trump appoints will be deciding cases for about 20 years.
This sudden disastrous outcome has completely unhinged the American left, and even some of the Republican establishment. Instead of permanently remaking the country, the left lost everything to a loud mouthed reality TV star with a lower class accent and abrasive manners, who insults the press constantly with tweets at 3 AM. The Us mainstream media dreams of ways to bring down Trump because they have no other way to fundamentally remake America the way they planned. They have even gotten as far as speculating about a CIA mutiny or a military coup in the US. The Pravda Press is in complete denial, looking for any way to roll the dice again for even a small chance to undo the damage.. The left's desperation measures the magnitude of their reversal.
In the US, consent of the governed is the basic principle the country was built on. John Locke first coined the phrase as part of his “Two Treatises on Government,” published in 1690 to justify replacing King James II of England with William and Mary in 1688. So it’s important in Britain as well. Consent of the governed is what allowed Parliament to legislate the Act of Settlement in 1701, which set the rule of Succession for the British Monarchy that’s still in force today.
Locke thought that government exists to preserve the life, liberty and property of each person it governs. This phrase, edited to make it more user friendly, was used in the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The chief purpose of government in Western democracies today is to regulate life, constrict liberty and redistribute property, usually without the consent of the governed.
Current US government practice is that almost all new laws that pass Congress are passed as shells, which are filled in later by regulatory agencies, executive orders and court rulings. The problem with regulations, executive orders and court decisions is that none of the processes used to make these things is designed to get the consent of the governed. Conversely, the voters can’t hold the regulatory agencies, executive departments and judges responsible for their actions. In the US, regulatory boards are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, to fixed terms of office. Judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for life terms.
While I’m not quite as clear about how things work in Europe, it appears to me that the European Union does business the same way. Most of their important policies seem to be the result of regulatory agencies or court decisions. Voters don’t get to hold the decision makers accountable.
Bypassing legislatures makes the flow of new regulations arbitrary and largely unpredictable. What are, in effect, laws come out of murky processes in back rooms at regulatory agencies or government executive departments. Then they are subject to review in the courts where the decisions are also hard to predict. The process is like a ping pong match, and the ball bounces around with almost no attempt to gain the consent of the people who will bear the burden of the new rules. The chaotic nature of regulatory processes inhibits long term private sector investment. You’re not going to invest in something which takes 5 or 10 years to pay off if it could be regulated out of existence in 3 to 6 months.
In the US, we have an especially virulent form of this chaos called the “Living Constitution.” Most people probably think that the Constitution is like a contract. The meaning of a contract is fixed when the contract is signed. So logically, the meaning of the Constitution or a Constitutional Amendment should be fixed at the time it’s ratified. The “Living Constitution” doctrine says that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time, based on changing modern conditions. This works out as an excuse to alter the Constitution in the Supreme Court by finding new meaning in the Constitution to suit progressive fashion. In the past, Justices had to decide based on what the law or the Constitution said, whether they like it or not. Now Justices can decide cases based on what they would like the law to be.
The president wields almost all of the power of the modern regulatory state in the US. He or she issues executive orders, in effect controls all regulatory agencies and appoints all judges, including Supreme Court Justices. The appointment of “Living Constitution” Justices was extremely important to the left. Because of Antonin Scalia’s death and the age and ill health of 2 or 3 other Justices, whoever won 2016 was going to be decisive in deciding whether the “Living Constitution” doctrine prevailed or not. The normal ways to change the Constitution require 3/4ths of the States to ratify an amendment. Since Republicans control both legislative chambers in 32 states, that isn’t going to happen for progressives. Their only shot at big changes was cheating with a “Living Constitution” in the Supreme Court. That’s why Trump published a list of 21 judges he would consider appointing to the Supreme Court. All of them were original meaning judges, not “Living Constitution” judges. This list gave conservative Republicans, like me, the confidence to vote for Trump no matter how bad his manners were. Voting for Hillary would have erased the Constitution by allowing it to be completely redefined.
President Obama was especially energetic in concentrating as much power as possible into the Oval Office. Obama used his pen and phone without restraint in his second term to avoid having to deal with Republicans in Congress. He created precedents that were safe only if Hillary Clinton succeeded him. The Democrats went all in, betting that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016 and secure Obama’s legacy.
What happened was a Trump victory. All of the pen and phone power Obama concentrated in the Oval Office will be used to undo the entire hope and change of the last 8 years. Trump will make at least two Supreme Court appointments. The Justices Trump appoints will be deciding cases for about 20 years.
This sudden disastrous outcome has completely unhinged the American left, and even some of the Republican establishment. Instead of permanently remaking the country, the left lost everything to a loud mouthed reality TV star with a lower class accent and abrasive manners, who insults the press constantly with tweets at 3 AM. The Us mainstream media dreams of ways to bring down Trump because they have no other way to fundamentally remake America the way they planned. They have even gotten as far as speculating about a CIA mutiny or a military coup in the US. The Pravda Press is in complete denial, looking for any way to roll the dice again for even a small chance to undo the damage.. The left's desperation measures the magnitude of their reversal.