My
problem with presidential power is when it is used unconstitutionally. The country’s
constitution wasn’t written to tell citizens what to do; so as much as it was
to protect us from the whims of those in power. Sometimes I’m in favor of the
changes proposed, but I remain concerned when the methods chosen in executive
orders almost circumvent the constitution.
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli
wrote a book called The Prince. I find distasteful that he argued for public
and private morality to be two different things in order to rule well. He was on
thin ice when asserting a ruler might act immorally at the “right” times to gain
political aims, even noble goals. Taking that to its zenith, you arrive
at Joseph Stalin’s maxim: “if you want to eat omelets you must break a few
eggs.” While many miles from the horrors
of Communist dictatorship, we are experiencing Machiavellianism in our
politics.
The New Jersey Legislature wants to bring before voters an amendment to the state constitution. I like the
change. The trouble is the sponsors waited too long to get it before the
assembly. The rule says: "At least 20 days prior to the first vote in the
house in which such amendments are first introduced, the same shall be printed
and placed on the desks of the members of each house." That gives us all
time to comment on it or call our representatives.
At 5pm on a Friday night the Assembly
Speaker, Vincent Prieto, called the Assembly back into session for a quorum
call. Only one member of the Assembly arrived. I presume the others had gone
home for the weekend by 5pm. Now here’s where Prieto thought the end justified
the means: he opened the vote tally machine and told staff members to go to the
desks of the members of the General Assembly while those members were absent and
vote "Present." 70 such votes were recorded. No Vincent, no!
Joshua Kaplan said of Machiavelli: “He
emancipated politics from theology and moral philosophy.” Speaker Prieto, is
there something immoral about pretending that absent elected officials are
present, and then voting on their behalf? President Obama plans to sign executive orders
soon prohibiting discrimination against gay and transgender workers in the U.S.
government and its contracting agencies. President Lyndon Johnson prohibited
federal contractors from discriminating based on race, religion, gender or
nationality in hiring. Obama plans to add sexual orientation and gender
identity to the list of protections. He thus seeks to emancipate politics from
theology.
At present we have the tax scandal in which certain liberals are accused of using the I.R.S. to make life very difficult for conservative organisations that have for years been a thorn in the side of left-leaning politicians. This is a worrisome example of misuse of methods.
If Mr. Obama is not an aberration, but part of
a trend, I see more struggles ahead, because the American Constitution was
written with plenty of theology and moral philosophy! It was written with a
Judeo / Christian worldview. 13 years ago, on a Chicago public radio program, Obama said the
document had “deep flaws,” adding that the country’s Founding Fathers had “an
enormous blind spot” when they wrote it. Adding fuel to the fire he opined that
the Civil Rights movement had failed to bring about an economic redistribution
of wealth in America.
Forced respect for homosexuality, redistribution
of wealth, these are two of the rallying cries of international socialism.
Stacking the courts with liberals has helped the left overcome the constitutional protections
given to the voters and the states. The
end is clearly in view and whatever means will serve that destination is deemed
acceptable. It may be modern and it may be pragmatic, but it’s not the way
Judeo / Christian countries care built.
More importantly than all this: we each need to search our own hearts as to when we will be tempted to use unethical methods. One - you will never forget it when you do. Two - its a slippery slope when you succeed. Guard your heart!
No comments:
Post a Comment