ANNALS OF THE WEST (VOL.1, NO.3): THE SILENT AGGREGATION OF POWER

"I BELIEVE THERE ARE MORE INSTANCES OF THE ABRIDGMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE BY GRADUAL AND SILENT ENCROACHMENTS OF THOSE IN POWER, THAN BY SUDDEN AND VIOLENT USURPATIONS..."
 James Madison  to 
Thomas Jefferson, 1788

Quite rightly, much discussion has taken place during the last 5 years of the unremitting acquisition of power in the executive branch of our government.  In fact, the present administration in Washington is replete with instances in which the executive has taken upon itself to act in unconstitutional ways to amass authority that more properly belongs to the legislative branch.

Various reasons by various constitutional scholars have been put forth to explain this trend; however, Two for Texas is of the opinion that, since the Great Depression, government has grown exponentially, owing to the tendency of the executive branch to accommodate increasing expectations of the electorate for more and more benefits accruing from Washington.

If those who framed our constitution were able to view our government and its vast bureaucracy today, it is more than likely that they would wonder at how the system equates with their ideals.  Essentially, the founders produced a defensive document, one in which the primary goal was the protection of the individual.

In contrast, the expectations for a myriad of governmental functions in the 21st century has resulted in government prone to the vicissitudes of constant feeding frenzies in Washington.  We say, in not so convincing ways, that we wish to live under the provisions of the Constitution, but in reality it would seem to be otherwise. 

The Constitution provides  the means for revision; and, granted, the process is not an easy one.  And that is for the good reason that all change should be thoroughly and reasonably undertaken.  In other words, constitutional change ought not to be undertaken because of the whim of the moment.

Consequently, as factions consider their relationships to the central government, more and more efforts are made to influence that government.  And the result is that more money is spent in order to find a place at the great dining table that Washington has become.  And who better than to preside and to set the table than he who wields executive authority?

A case in point is the wrangling that characterized the behind-the-doors negotiations that brought us the monstrosity of Obamacare.  The original promise was that the negotiations would be "transparent" and above-board, that they would actually be made public through the media such as C-Span.  However, that was never the case; and, all too clearly, those who had expended the most effort and resources won for themselves choice  seats at the Washington dining table and secured all manner of waivers, exceptions and inclusions.  Accommodations were made for Congress, unions, Wall Street, corporations, the insurance industry, the medical establishment and a host of others. But nothing of the sort was going to be there for Main St. USA, which received lies instead of accommodations.  No wonder Obamacare, as it has surfaced, is a hodgepodge of Frankenstein-type nightmares.  But, after all, it had to be passed before we would be able to know what was  in it!

In other areas, predominantly political, the present administration has deigned to enforce the law, in an effort to court certain interest groups.  In this regard, there is no better example of what is now called "prosecutorial discretion" than immigration law.  The proposed DREAM Act, which would have legalized the standing of offspring born to parents illegally in the United States, failed in Congress.  However, doing an end run around law-making, the Obama administration chose not to enforce the removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, thus, by executive authority, legalizing in the status of anywhere from 800,000 to more than 1,000,000 individuals. Arguments which could possibly rationalize the executive branch of not "taking due care to enforce," such as unconstitutionality of the law, individual equity and resource limitations, are inadequate to explain away the responsibility of the executive branch to enforce the law.  For all practical purposes, the executive branch became the legislative branch.  And, for what were political reasons to court and solidify the support of a vocal minority, this administration refused to "go by the book" and, even worse, possibly provided a precedent for future unconstitutional power-grabs by the executive branch.

ALEXIS DE TOQUEVILLE

Many of us may be in sympathy with altruistic goals which could have a positive impact on human beings.  However, that sympathy must be tempered by respect for the law.  The lofty actions by the executive branch in overcoming inaction by the legislative branch may, on the surface, appear reasonable and laudatory, but in the long run may also have the potential for distortion, as suggested by Alexis de Toqueville's term of "soft tyranny" and its possibility of leading to the erosion of individual liberty.

Deo Vindice!

May God bless Texas, and may the Lone Star State remain forever red!