That to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Are governments not really instituted to secure these rights? Or, is there a further truth that illuminates the meaning of the principle they enunciated?
(No Pollyanna here, the very men that pledged their lives on these truths nonetheless acceded to the continuation in force of the Peculiar Institution of Human Slavery. Their singular hypocrisy – declaring the created equality of everyman while impressing into hard bondage and uncompensated labor the men and women of
Now, as the Obama administration pursues international agreements, with China and with Iran, we learn that the President will at least consider embodying those agreements in packages that are not treaties. Treaties, of course, must be ratified by the Senate to bind the United States:
The President ... shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur ....
Yet, in a daily press briefing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest asserted that duly elected members of the Senate, who with their fellows enjoy an equal role with the President in the treaty making power, were not qualified to vote on any climate change accord that the United States and China might craft: "I’m not sure they would be in the best position to decide whether or not a climate change agreement is one that is worth entering into." Further pressed by the Fox News correspondent whose question provoked the response above, Earnest announced a test for qualification for the right to vote on treaty ratification that is entirely a-constitutional: "I think it's hard to take seriously from some members of Congress who deny the fact that climate change exists, that they should have some opportunity to render judgment about climate change agreements."
Accuse me of counting angels on pinheads over the threatened ammunition import and sales bans.
Still, you cannot deny that as a matter of history, this Nation’s tumultuous rise fixed as a principle of our future government that imposition of taxes without representation was tyranny. The Executive Branch is not a representative body of the people. Moreover, the power to lay and collect taxes belongs to the Legislative Branch, not the Executive:
After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us, and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay.
Congress withholds its disciplinary hand. The President proceeds apace in his constitutional profligacy. In so doing, he looms larger in his tyranny. The precious liberties of the People fall under the looming shade of his usurpation. Still, a Congress entirely in the hands of the political party opposite the President does not heed the danger, does not act to curtail the abuses.