Stormy Daniels
Gold Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 7,106
- 2,393
- 265
This is a problem that has been building for years, at least as far back as Karl Rove using GWB to expand the Presidency. We can't blame Donald, he is just the manifestation of the people's failure to remain diligent against government abuse.
Deeply rooted in the American identity is a discomfort with the potential of power to be wielded in ways that offend the dignity of the individual (otherwise known as freedom). Our founders recognized that a government must be powerful enough to be effective at promoting a strong and prosperous nation, but that those powers must be checked because the same power that allows government to accomplish its mission can just as easily be used to the personal profit of officials, or to the detriment of the people in general.
While partisan politics has never been a sugar and spice affair, for most of our history elected officials have largely sought to govern on a premise of what an American government should do. They often disagreed and there were frequently bad apples among the bunch, but in most instances our government has managed to preserve a general philosophy of containing the wielding of power to what should be exercised. Likely, the greatest containing force was the willingness of the people to inflict a backlash.
But we've lost touch with those principles. In the 21st century, power itself is its own justification. Our government increasingly exercises power because it can, and the fact that it can wield a power is seen as giving it the right to wield power upon any whim of the person or people holding that capacity. The perception of a limited government of checks and balances has changed in the American mind. In earlier times it seems that checks and balances were seen as just one method of preventing a government from abusing power. Now they are the determinative factor where many people rest their heads. As if their existence is enough to validate that an exercise of power is not abusive or not corrupt. To listen to some people talk, they seem to think that the Framers wanted governmental power to be abused.
But the very concept of abusing power entails a use of power you can use, but you should not have used in the way that you did. Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you have the right to do it. There is no principle underlying the definition of Americana more than this fact. The constructing of rules in one or another form is not an invitation to leverage the construction into a nullification of the principles that provide a foundation for our approach to government. No governmental body, nor any officer, is so empowered that they are permitted to wield their office to any means whatsoever. If they do so, then they are in breach our highest law. The constitution does not grant any officer immunity to abuse power as long as it stays within a given scope.
The President may have the power to grant or remove security clearances. But that does not give him the right to do so in retaliation for a citizen exercising free speech. The President may have the power to fire the Special Counsel, but that does not mean he has the right to do so. We must once again embrace this distinction between government have the power to do something and having a right to do so. If fail to do so, we will finally be surrendering to George III.
Deeply rooted in the American identity is a discomfort with the potential of power to be wielded in ways that offend the dignity of the individual (otherwise known as freedom). Our founders recognized that a government must be powerful enough to be effective at promoting a strong and prosperous nation, but that those powers must be checked because the same power that allows government to accomplish its mission can just as easily be used to the personal profit of officials, or to the detriment of the people in general.
While partisan politics has never been a sugar and spice affair, for most of our history elected officials have largely sought to govern on a premise of what an American government should do. They often disagreed and there were frequently bad apples among the bunch, but in most instances our government has managed to preserve a general philosophy of containing the wielding of power to what should be exercised. Likely, the greatest containing force was the willingness of the people to inflict a backlash.
But we've lost touch with those principles. In the 21st century, power itself is its own justification. Our government increasingly exercises power because it can, and the fact that it can wield a power is seen as giving it the right to wield power upon any whim of the person or people holding that capacity. The perception of a limited government of checks and balances has changed in the American mind. In earlier times it seems that checks and balances were seen as just one method of preventing a government from abusing power. Now they are the determinative factor where many people rest their heads. As if their existence is enough to validate that an exercise of power is not abusive or not corrupt. To listen to some people talk, they seem to think that the Framers wanted governmental power to be abused.
But the very concept of abusing power entails a use of power you can use, but you should not have used in the way that you did. Just because you have the power to do something does not mean that you have the right to do it. There is no principle underlying the definition of Americana more than this fact. The constructing of rules in one or another form is not an invitation to leverage the construction into a nullification of the principles that provide a foundation for our approach to government. No governmental body, nor any officer, is so empowered that they are permitted to wield their office to any means whatsoever. If they do so, then they are in breach our highest law. The constitution does not grant any officer immunity to abuse power as long as it stays within a given scope.
The President may have the power to grant or remove security clearances. But that does not give him the right to do so in retaliation for a citizen exercising free speech. The President may have the power to fire the Special Counsel, but that does not mean he has the right to do so. We must once again embrace this distinction between government have the power to do something and having a right to do so. If fail to do so, we will finally be surrendering to George III.