Tuesday, January 14, 2014

It’s Good to be King

Obama, speaking to reporters during a cabinet meeting at the White House, foreshadowed his upcoming State of the Union address and what appeared to be a new messaging strategy by emphasizing his ability to take executive actions without approval from lawmakers. 

Laws without lawmakers.  I like the “without…lawmakers” part…. 

"We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help that they need," he said. 

Waiting for legislation?  No; that would be too, oh…what’s the word…Constitutional? 

"I've got a pen, and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions ... and I've got a phone that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life," he said. 

I don’t find a Constitutional amendment replacing Congress with a pen and a phone…. 

Do they swear to uphold the Constitution, or do they swear at upholding the Constitution?  

Grievances against King George, from the Declaration of Independence: 

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. 

Not that the US Congress demonstrates any “manly firmness” these days (that’s not what I mean), but you get the point…. 

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. 

Damn those Patriots.  Thanks for nothing.


  1. Well said doesn't cover this but trying to think of anything better is too depressing.

  2. the man who would be king perceives himself as king and acts as king, even as he 'brings democracy to the rest of the world'. this passes for 'leadership', but is nothing but an official schizophrenic dichotomy that we suffer under.

    monarchy lead police state to us, 'democracy' to the rest of the world.

  3. Speaking of kings, (he says prefacing a non sequitur)
    Just ran across this bit from Nock in Our Enemy the State:

    Under feudalism, production had been, as a general thing, for use, with the incidence of exploitation falling largely on a peasantry. The State had by no means always kept its hands off trade, but it had never countenanced the idea that its chief reason for existence was, as we say, "to help business." The merchants and financiers, however, had precisely this idea in mind. They saw the attractive possibilities of production for profit, with the incidence of exploitation gradually shifting to an industrial proletariat. They saw also, however, that to realize all these possibilities, they must get the State's mechanism to working as smoothly and powerfully on the side of "business" as it had been working on the side of the monarchy, the Church, and the large-holding landed proprietors. This meant capturing control of this mechanism, and so altering and adapting it as to give themselves the same free access to the political means as was enjoyed by the displaced beneficiaries. The course by which they accomplished this is marked by the Civil War, the dethronement and execution of Charles I, the Puritan protectorate, and the revolution of 1688.

    This brings into clarity the revolution and the Constitutional convention. Also, it seems to confirm that the elites have to have known of the wealth generating, free-market precepts of the Cantillons and Turgots in order to establish themselves at the head of a wealthy nation.

    Finally, it shows a long-term timeline to understand that wealth would need to be built in a slow usurpation of freedom. Evil but ingenious. Should I adjust my tin foil hat?

  4. I had to add this too. The more I read this, the more I am blown away.
    From Nock, Our Enemy the State:

    The merchant-State's political rationale had to respond to the pressure of a growing individualism. The spirit of individualism appeared in the latter half of the sixteenth century; probably – as well as such obscure origins can be determined – as a by-product of the Continental revival of learning, or, it may be, specifically as a by-product of the Reformation in Germany. It was long, however, in gaining force enough to make itself count in shaping political theory. The feudal State could take no account of this spirit; its stark regime of status was operable only where there was no great multiplicity of diverse economic interests to be accommodated, and where the sum of social power remained practically stable. Under the British feudal State, one large-holding landed proprietor's interest was much like another's, and one bishop's or clergyman's interest was about the same in kind as another's. The interests of the monarchy and court were not greatly diversified, and the sum of social power varied but little from time to time. Hence an economic class-solidarity was easily maintained; access upward from one class to the other was easily blocked, so easily that very few positive State-interventions were necessary to keep people, as we say, in their place; or as Cranmer's divines put it, to keep them doing their duty in that station of life unto which it had pleased God to call them. Thus the State could accomplish its primary purpose, and still afford to remain relatively weak. It could normally, that is, enable a thorough-going economic exploitation with relatively little apparatus of legislation or personnel.