What Does Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ and Today's Debt Debacle Have in Common?

You may not have known the link between Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, and the debt debacle of today had any link to each other at all, but they do. I will explain. 

The genesis of the Progressive Movement we know today (AKA liberalism or progressivism) was set in motion with Theodore Roosevelt in the late 1800's. Among the agenda for this movement was the idea of "Democratization." Democratization was supposed to end the corruption of political parties and their local bosses (Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall in New York City for a famous example) by opening up the process to the public through public voting and elections. To their credit, they did institute the primary elections that allow the general voting public to choose candidates for office, but they did much more damage than they did good. 

It is here that I would like to make a point about the USA's government system. We are not a democracy. We are a Federal Constitutional Republic with democratic traditions. Although the differences are numerous, the one difference I wish to concentrate on in this post is the source of power. In a democracy, the source of power is the ever changing and fickle will of the people. In our Constitutional Republic the source of power is not the will of the people but the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is the kingship, authority, supreme reign and dominancy of the Law upon everything in the nation. The Law rules, as a king rules, over every aspect of our lives. No one person, agency, government or branch of government is above the law. Well, God is above the law. According to the Founders' philosophy God is the author of the law, they believed in Natural Law that is handed down from Nature and Nature's God. From this Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "...all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." Our rights, freedoms, liberties and restrictions all come from the Law. No institution can take these away from you without due process OF THE LAW. So the Law gives, and the Law takes away. The will of the People of the United States of America must be subjugated under the law.

But even the Law has a hierarchy. The Hierarchy of Law is the tiered ladder of Supremacy of the different layers of law. The Constitution of the United States of America is the highest tier of Law in the USA. Treaties passed under the authority of the Constitution are also Supreme Law. Then there is Case Law, which are the decisions of the Supreme Court used as Stare Decisis (or Precedent used to make future rulings on similar topics). Although not formerly a law and holds no real authority of law, SCOTUS Rulings are used by all inferior courts and state courts to make rulings on similar cases. Case Law is used in the conforming of the next tier of Law to the Constitution, Normal Law passed by the National Legislature. Here is where things get complicated in the Hierarchy. The laws passed by the National Legislature may not be in effect everywhere (usually limited to lands owned by the General Government). Under Normal Law are all the rules and regulations by the agencies of the Executive Branch.

Sharing some of the same tiers in the hierarchy are State Constitutions which are the Supreme Law governing the state and are only applicable in the specific state. Under that are State Normal law passed by the state legislature and then the state agencies' rules and regulations.

But above all tiers of Law is the Law of Nature and Nature's God. Our rights as humans and citizens are sovereign of themselves, and we as citizens are sovereign over ourselves.

This muddled Hierarchy where Tiers of laws are both subjugated by a higher authority yet supreme at the same time is the heart of checks and balances and federalism.

I hope I made this clear because this is the foundation for my argument that the Progressives with the Democratization push had motives other than ending corruption; other more sinister motives.

(Still in history teacher mode here so bear with me for a little while longer) The Founding Fathers understood there was a problem inherent with creating a government that needed to protect the Rule of Law, guard the rights of the people and the sovereignty of the states while making the law, deciding the rights of the people and guarding the sovereignty of the states. It is akin to the fox guarding the henhouse or the dog guarding the steak. So the Founders, to the credit of their genius and wisdom, set up an extensive system of checks and balances designed to chain that fox and leash that dog while giving it enough leeway to do the job it needed to do. Each layer of government can not exercise its own powers without the other branches exercising their powers in agreement. James Madison explained the system of checks and balances as best as anyone of any generation in Federalist #51:

"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition... 

...If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

You are more than likely familiar with the concept of the Separation of Powers construct of checks and balances at the General Government level (I will shortly explain why I did not use "Federal level" to refer to the national government in Washington DC). Three branches of government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) each with exclusive but interdependent powers. The Legislative Branch (created by Article 1 §1) was further divided into two houses, the House of Representatives (Article 1 § 2) and the Senate (Article 1 § 3). Note: the symbol "§" means "section," so Article 1 § 1 reads "Article One Section One."

Article 1 § 1 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 1 § 2 reads:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."

Article 1 § 3 reads:

 "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each senator shall have one vote."

 I added bold text to emphasize an important detail in those clauses. That detail is who chooses the persons for each house of the Legislature. Please notice that the people choose who goes to the House of Representatives and the state legislatures chose who went to the Senate (the actual procedures were left to the states' individual system and laws for appointing the Senators). This leads to the explanation of why I, nor the Founders, do not use "Federal" to refer to the General (or National) government. Federal is a term that means a form of government in which several independent states join together and form a union with a central authority but retain some or most of their own sovereignty over their respective territories. Even though it is not a sin to refer to the General Government in DC as the "Federal Government" it is technically not a federal government but only a portion of the federation as it pertains to the United States of America. This concept is extremely important to comprehend, so please take your time to understand it thoroughly and its implications.

In respect to checks and balances, federalism is one of the most important but overlooked (and today the most violated) check and balance of the General Government. As indicated above the Senate was comprised of politicians chosen by the states legislatures and therefore Senators represented the states' interests in the General Government. This is very important in that the states had control over the votes of their Senators and instructed them to oppose illegal power grabs by the General Government from the states. Also, as we will see later, states would also instruct their Senators to oppose spending for other than necessary things by the General Government.

Okay, with all that out of the way, let's get to the Progressive Movement's push for "democratization." Progressives were not for the anti-corruption agenda they sold the people. They were after power, and the greatest power was held in the unleashing of the General Government from its chains. The Progressives started movements in the states where people would vote for Progressive candidates at the state level who in turn changed state election laws to reflect the popular election of Senators for the state. Enough states were infiltrated with Progressives to turn the Senate into another chamber representing the people. Thus undermining the states' check on the power of the General Government.

Why is this such a bad thing? The conversation between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (more than likely fictional but still useful) where Washington explains the bi-cameral Legislature to Jefferson as the House of Representatives being the hot cup of tea and the Senate being a saucer explains my point. You pour the scolding hot tea from the cup into the saucer to cool it down before drinking it so it will not burn your mouth. Because the people (represented by the House of Representatives) are "hot-headed" more willing to spend lots of money and concentrate power than the states (represented by the Senate) who were more "cool-headed." With both Chambers of Congress now representing the "hot-headed" people there is no longer a cooling function to stop the usurpation of power by the General Government. For symbolism purposes I will now refer to the General Government as the Central Government.

What is the difference between a Central Government and a General Government? Nothing really but technical terminology but it will hammer my point home. A General Government is the creation of the states to fulfill certain functions that unifies the states and mutually benefits all of them while maintaining their own sovereignty. With a General Government, the individual state are still the superior entity in the relationship between the state, the other states and the agreed upon central authority. With a Central Government, the central authority becomes the superior entity in that relationship and the states take the inferior roles. A Central Government is also more likely to concentrate power and money to itself and subjugate its creators, the states.

In 1913, with Woodrow Wilson as President, the final nail in the coffin of states' representation in Congress and the assurance of the death of responsible governing by the Central Government was placed into the Constitution as the 17th Amendment.

The 17th Amendment's first clause reads:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures."

Since this Amendment was approved (via a coup d'etat of the Senate) the states are removed and voiceless in the goings-on of the monster they agreed to create. Now, each Senator is an at-large representative of the people's interest in the state not the interests of the state itself. To prove this point, the second sentence destroys the state's ability to control who can vote for the Senator by affirming the same voting eligibility to vote for Senator as to vote for the House of Representatives. Okay it does not say that, BUT in Article 1 §2, to be eligible to vote for the House you must qualify to vote for the larger state legislative chamber, the 17th Amendment reiterates Art.1§2 word for word for eligibility.

The first chain on the Central Government was forever removed from around it's neck, but there was another chain around it's feet that had to be removed. This chain was the purse strings. This, again, takes some historical backtracking to explain.

The Constitution (in Article 1 §9) bans the General Government (note the use of the inferior authority again) from directly taxing the people, thereby depriving the dragon of the necessary food to grow and thrive...money. Instead, the General Government could only independently raise funds using tariffs, excises, duties and imposts; all taxes on imported goods from foreign countries. To avoid trade wars with foreign nations these import taxes would be kept low. However, Thomas Jefferson boasted that he funded the entire General Government for most of his two terms on import taxes alone.

This limited authority to independently raise revenue was a huge check on the General Government. However, if it did overspend it's budget the General Government could then borrow money on the credit of the United States. This was not the credit rating of the General Government but the credit rating of all the states combined. In other words, the General Government could borrow money if the states co-signed the loan. The states were then required to repay that loan in the beginning of the next fiscal year in proportion of the number of representatives it had in the House of Representatives. This may need an example: if the General Government borrowed $435 last year to make ends meet each state would pay the amount equal to $435 TIMES (# of Reps the state sends to Congress DIVIDED BY total Reps in Congress). This is roughly equal to the percentage of the state's population of the nation as a whole OR the ratio of state population to the national population. So the budget was balanced every year naturally, the states forced the Senate to oppose spending and all was well and America flourished.

Progressives hated this chain. It really hampered their dreams of a powerful Dragon to accumulate wealth and power for themselves. Even after the Senate was effectively compromised through popular elections, the states could still withhold funds to pay the debt or worse withhold the credit it needed to fund bloated budgets that import taxes couldn't cover. Enter the 16th Amendment again by Woodrow Wilson in 1913.

The 16th Amendment reads:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Now the Central Government controls it's own purse strings without the states to check it. The Central Government can reach into each citizens wallets and take what it needs to feed that inner Dragon. The Coup D'etat is almost complete. There is still one more chain around the Dragon's belly that needed to be cut for the Progressives (who by now fall right in line with the European Fascists and Socialists). This chain was interests of the voters.

Voting rights have been controversial in America for a long time...so says the liberal today. I disagree, voting privileges, or more specifically the denial of voting privileges, has been a stroke of genius by those who understood government's inner dragon. The most popular restriction on voting rights was the requirement of ownership of property. As property owners you pay property taxes and these property taxes were used as voter eligibility. In effect they are poll taxes. You had to pay to vote. In other words, you had to be invested in the outcomes of the policies to vote; or in Pres. Obama's slang "had to have skin in the game." The Founders did not want those that did not pay taxes, who didn't care about the effects of policy on the economy or who were motivated by revenge or hatred or those who would vote to steal the wealth of others to give to themselves to vote for policies that could ruin the fiscal policy. Today we call these undesirable voters "zero liability voters" because they do not feel the effects or liability of the policies for which they vote in favor, while the ones who actually "have skin in the game" feel all the effects. The exclusion of the Zero Liability Voter, thereby giving more voice and checking power to those who have a vested interest, was the last and final constraint upon the dragon. The vested voter would not vote for candidates who would grow the dragon by raising taxes or concentrating power. Enter the 24th Amendment in 1964:

 " TherightofcitizensoftheUnitedStatestovoteinanyprimaryorother election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for senator or representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Lyndon B. Johnson knew that he needed the Zero Liability Voter to vote for his candidates to finalize the destruction of the Founders' dream of liberty and freedom and institute an authoritarian regime of money and power.  So how did LBJ do this? He got the 24th Amendment passed through a compromised Senate whose Senators are more than willing now to promise new constituents money from the public treasury. LBJ then got his Great Society agenda passed which gave us the modern welfare programs. The buying off of a majority of voters to retain power and wealth is complete. The dragon is fully loose from bondage. Now to feed the dragon!

Since their are no external checks on the Central Government now the only thing holding it back are internal checks; remember the three branches of interdependent powers? And there is always that specter of the states rising up too. How to solve these pesky nuisances? Oh yeah! For those pesky states. get them addicted to easy Central Government tax money just like the Zero Liability Voters...DONE! Block grants, grants in aid, funded mandates all give the states their dollar fix, and unfunded mandates keeps them broke enough to require funds from DC to survive.

 Now on to consolidating all that power into the Presidency. How do you do that? If you need the Congress to pass laws and the President to enforce them how do you slowly combine the two? The answer is regulatory power. The President is the chief executive of all the agencies in the Central Government. He can command them to do anything he wishes with an Executive Order. Now EO's have no effect of law outside the agency it is directed at, but that EO can direct the agency to make regulations that do have the effect of law...WITHOUT CONGRESS! Here is how this works:
1- Congress passes a law that is vague and without specifics;
2- This law gives the executive agency that is in charge of the area of the law "Regulatory Power" to fill in the specifics in the law;
3- The President then sends an EO to the Agency to make certain regulations the President wants.

There is an agency to control every aspect of your life from conception to graveyard maintenance.

So what do we have today thanks to Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ? An over bloated Central Government that has promised money it doesn't have to every entity that can either vote for or give money to a politician. It has borrowed so much money from creditors that the debt is now more than the entire productivity of all Americans combined (GDP). Politicians have passed laws to check itself, like the debt ceiling, but those checks are either ignored or moved out of the way. The states will not step up and force its way back into relevancy, the people are so accustomed to getting free money they wont put an end to the madness, and if you express a solution that cuts off their money teat they demonize you and claim you want to kill grandma by force feeding her dog food.

The Progressive plan to install a socialist/fascist government has worked. Today, we are on the razor's edge collapse economically and signs of social collapse are everywhere (but that is another post to explain that). All that Progressives need to do now is watch from a safe distance. I do not believe the absolute needed fix to this mess will be discussed in time, considered in time, implemented in time to have the time to work.

But for the record, in case you are wondering, the solution is Repeal the 17th Amendment. Return to a real Federalist Government system. Amend the 16th Amendment to reflect a tax rate floor of 5% and a rate ceiling of 10% to be laid on all wage earners regardless of income (Low Wage Earners would be taxed the floor rate while High Wage Earners are taxed at the rate ceiling). Return the requirement of the states to pay the debt and deficit in full of the previous fiscal year at the start of the new Fiscal Year. Reverse the Progressivism, Restore the Federal Constitutional Republic!

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."
Benjamin Franklin's Speech to the Constitutional Convention (28 June 1787)