Thursday, August 21, 2008

The Leader?

I really dislike the improper phrase, “the leader of the free world” when applied to the President of the United States and wish people would stop using it (as people often do when referring to McCain and Obama as potentially being), unless their agenda is to manipulate people into either assuming that we have a dictatorship or thinking that we ought to have a one-world government. This phrase indicates a failure to understand the United States Constitution, in which our federal government was designed with THREE EQUAL BRANCHES that provide checks and balances to each other, the Executive Branch (the President and his cabinet), the Legislative Branch (the two houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate), and the Judicial Branch (the Supreme Court). No one branch is superior to the others, and therefore no one individual within one of the branches is superior to the others, and certainly not the President. The President is merely the lead administrator of the laws that Congress passes, and he also is supposed to serve as a sort of federal “host” to visiting foreign officials and serve as Commander and Chief of the military. The enumerated powers of the President are actually very few. (Americans really should carefully reread the Constitution). A person like President Bush expanded his powers WAY beyond what is constitutional, and therefore nothing of what he did along these lines is valid and actually may be legally ignored. Nothing unconstitutional is a valid law in the United States.

Also, in the United States the state is the sovereign, not the federal government, which means that as citizens of the United States, we are citizens of our individual state FIRST, and then the United States as a whole. The people of today, being generally weak and not self-reliant like the early Americans, tend to think in terms of monarchies or dictatorships (they’re always looking to somebody to rule them, which is why they trend toward centrally planned economies), do not fully understand the concept of the state being sovereign, but the point of the federation was to ease interstate trade and make more efficient our relationships with foreign countries, not to create a new country that overtook the power of the individual states. Not one state would have ratified the Constitution if by their doing so they had relinquished their sovereignty.

If any government executive should be more important to the individual citizen, it would be the governor of their state, not the President of the United States, but actually the governor is really not too different at the state level than the president is at the federal level.

In the United States, the PEOPLE are the true government, not those elected as our representatives. So if there are “leaders,” they are each one of us individually, and we really ought to take that role very seriously.

And what’s this idea of “the free world” that the President is supposedly the leader of? He certainly isn’t the leader of the United Kingdom or Australia or Germany or Japan, or any other “democratic” or similar country, many of which, by the way, are actually currently more free than the United States. They have their own leaders, chosen by them.

Among all the very serious problems that this country has, I would say that at the very bottom of it is people accepting, and using, this concept of the President as being the Leader of the Free World. Not only is that wrong, we better hope it never becomes true.

No comments: