Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870

Blog

    2013: “... one of the worst for the republic.”

    01/04/2014
    Personal Freedom and Prosperity 110: The Rule of Law

    In drawing up the Massachusetts Constitution John Adams described the Rule of Law:  “to the end it may be a government of laws, not of men.”  

    2013:  “... one of the worst for the republic.”

    “The past year may go down not only as the least productive ever in Washington but as one of the worst for the republic,”  wrote Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). 

    By definition, a republic disperses and checks the powers of lawmakers and enforcers, and for a republic to excel a strict obedience to The Rule of Law is essential.  The Rule of Law is defined by:

    A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces the rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions. The law prevails, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, the enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge.

    In the Wall Street Journal, Coburn decries the devastation to America's philosophical, moral and legal foundations.

    The Rule of Law:  “On health care, President Obama oversaw a disastrous and, sadly, dishonest launch of his signature achievement. The president gave an exception to employers, but not to individuals, without any legal basis, and made other adjustments according to his whim.”

    Moral Authority:  “... if you like your plan, you can keep it, and that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. We now know that the administration was aware that these claims were false, yet Mr. Obama continued to make them, repeatedly.”

    Deception is Destructive:  “... the old kind of politics, teaches politicians that repetition and "message discipline"—never straying from using the same slogans and talking points—can create reality, regardless of the facts. ... When a misleading message ultimately clashes with reality, the result is dissonance and conflict. In a republic, deception is destructive. Without truth there can be no trust. Without trust there can be no consent. And without consent we invite paralysis...if not chaos.”

    Senator Coburn, once considered a friend of then-Senator Obama, lists many failings by Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  In his conclusion, Coburn excoriates the moral and legal degradation of politics in DC.  “We live in a time when laws and rules are defined however the holders of power decree, and "messaging" is paramount, regardless how far the message is from reality.”

    Dangerously, the Rule of Law and moral authority have been eroding for many years, which has resulted in the public's disrespect for Congress.   Sadly, fewer and fewer Americans trust government.  Without truth and trust, there isn't a predictable or stable legal order on which We the People can base economic and personal decisions.  Government without moral authority, written rules, and a stable legal order furthers personal and economic paralysis... and ultimately chaos.

    Yes, 2013 was “one of the worst years for the republic.”  Only We the People can bring honesty and competency to our government.  As Senator Coburn wrote:

    “In 2014, here's a message worth considering: If you don't like the rulers you have, you don't have to keep them.”





     


     





     

    1 comments
    Free_American's picture
    Joe Marshall
    01/10/2014

    Hey Ted

    "Rule of Law" & "Truth" together in the New (progressive) Normal? Can't happen and never will!!!
    One: Absolute Truth in relative progressivism becomes so convoluted it becomes unobtainable, undeterminable, and therefore impossible. That which makes Truth impossible is by definition anti-Truth. As such, progressive relativism is THE anti-Truth. Only with God can there be an absolute Truth. Only with God can there be an absolute right or an absolute wrong in what we do. In addition, absolutely NO part or aspect of the humanism of progressivism can be argued for, that in the end, is not an argument against God. And as it was Jesus himself who tells us he is "the Truth", all that is anti-Truth is thereby anti-God.
    Truth has no place in progressivism, or for that matter any collectivism other than that which is decreed to the Truth according to whom it is being decreed by, at the time of the decree. For that matter in progressivism, to each his own truth! As Max Stirner Says "Nothing is more to me than myself". As Alinksi says, there is no such thing as a "fixed truth". And as Marx/Engels who say, communism "abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality". Such is the lure and false promise of the relativism of collective progressivism; at least so far as it aids in the destruction, or if you will "transformation", of our Property based capitalist "system" protected by the Constitution, toward the "Order" of progressivism's collective "planned society".
    Two: The "Order" of progressive collectivism and Constitutional "Rule of Law" are diabolical opposites. Where the "Order" of progressivism seeks to redistribute Property, constitutional Rule of Law seeks to prevent it, by protecting the Right of the Individual Property Owner from such designing collective redistributionists.
    Where our Individual Liberty and our Individual Rights are Free, a gift from our Creator, be it Nature or Nature's God, human rights and/or civil rights are just that, civil in origin, and for which we are forever indebted. Per Comte's "altruism" of Positive collective "Order", such collective "rights" can only be spoken of in the context of "duties" owed to the State or collective. As Rousseau tells us, such "rights", even our very Life, are "but a gift made conditionally by the State". A "planned society" requires redistribution. Redistribution can NOT recognize private Property, or it couldn't be redistributed. A planned society is NOT a Free Society. It does NOT and can NOT recognize private Property.
    Without a Right to Property their can be no Liberty!!! Why? Simply put, there can be no "Right" to the fruits of one's labor. There can be no enterprise and therefore no Market, as THE Fundamental Principle of enterprise or any business transaction is the exchange of Property owned for Property desired. As such without Property there can be no independent "pursuit of Happiness"! There can be no independent pursuit of prosperity! And where there can be no prosperity, poverty is eternal. What Individual Liberty could one possibly have when left with no avenue to an independent prosperity? Our Founders were well aware of this. Thus our Constitution and its ordained "rule of law" both recognizes and protects Property. Thus all in government authority swear a mandated allegiance to the preservation and protection of the same; our "Rule of Law.

    Pages