Tyranny in the 21st century
The last century saw a cosmic struggle between ideologies.
Liberal democracy changed from its 19th century roots and adopted a welfare state, but still believed that individual liberties could exist in a capitalist society. Communist societies, in their many forms, believed political revolutions without social engineering would be meaningless. The endurance of the Cold War left liberal democracy the winner. Communist assumptions on society still exist, but their economic system has been desecrated.
Now, the fight for personal liberty (and against lingering Marxist assumptions) must take place within the structure of liberal democracies. It is no longer sufficient to say that a society is free just because it is democratic. The execution of laws and interpretation of vague law is now the new form of tyranny. The American people must realize that bureaucratic and judicial institutions have been compromised by politically motivated individuals and nongovernmental organizations. Legislators have the power to stop these new developments.
Fighting the bureaucracy will be long, boring and too complicated to go into right now. Only modernization, education and persistence will tame the bureaucracy. The bigger problem right now is judicial rule and, more importantly, access and interaction with in the judicial system.
The Supreme Court is beginning to “interpret” the laws in ways that threaten the balance of power. The Supreme Court’s ability to judge the constitutionality of laws is absolutely necessary; who else is going to do it? However, now the court has become blatantly political and is being used by nongovernmental organizations and politically motivated judges to “interpret” to laws as they see fit. The process of nominating judges has become so political that it can no longer be ignored. New York Senator Chuck Schumer has openly admitted that politics matter. One could argue that the court has always been this way, but that it has not yet entered into the political conscious. One possible result may be that the Supreme Court will lose some of the sanctity it at present holds.
Article III, Section 2 of the constitution allows Congress to limit the court’s power: “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulation as the Congress shall make.”
A simple majority of Congress and a Presidential signature is all that is required to limit judicial power. The court is the only body that will oppose and, in the words of President Andrew Jackson, “Judge (name) has made their decision – now, let’s see them enforce.”
The only difference between Jackson’s day and ours is that he openly opposed the court; for some reason, we have to weasel around lower courts and bureaucracies. Congress’ open opposing of the court will require that average citizens pay attention to the political system more. Such interaction will demonstrate to citizens that politics is truly not that difficult to understand, once one puts his mind to it. The professional vanguard elite wants everything to be complicated so that they can interpret reality for the public. Public support will be necessary to tame the Supreme Court, and continuous public interaction will be what separates public will from tyranny of the majority.
The Supreme Court cannot continue to have the assumption of the final word on how all laws are applied. It was assumed at one time that the Earth was flat; that changed when man had an abrupt lesson about his world. Americans are going to need an abrupt lesson about the nature of the court. The assumption that Marbury v. Madison is untouchable can come to an end just as the flat world once did.
Nongovernmental organizations will cry that the courts protect us from oppression, but that assumption denies the modern nature of the courts. Those organizations are themselves the cause for the change, for they represent the Marxist assumption that a democratic society cannot rule itself and needs an enlighten few. They believe that it is their righteous duty to construct society as they see fit. Americans must use the legislator of their liberal democracy to eliminate the mechanisms of nongovernmental organizations. The threat to liberal democracy is not from without, but from within.
On a side note, the recent funeral of Sen. Paul Wellstone once again shows the total shamelessness of the post-Clinton Democratic party. First, Vice-President Cheney was asked not to come for that bogus reason of “security hassle.” Then, Democrats complained about ads in limited market spots attacking former Vice-President Mondale, who is Wellstone’s likely successor. Are we electing the local dog catcher? The Democrats have been dragging their feet on a nominee so they can milk all the sympathy physically possible from this tragedy. The despicable showing on Tuesday night proved that theory. Sen. Trent Lott was booed off the stage, Gov. Jesse Venture walked out and the Democrats turned what should have been a memorial service for Wellstone into a pep rally for liberal Democrats.
