Checks and Balances and Why They Are Important

In support of Democracy and freedom, I submit this post:

I have determined that I prefer living in a Democracy. I value freedom above pretty much everything else. I am passionate about freedom. I believe freedom is worth fighting for.

If you also value freedom, please read this and think about it. I welcome comments. It is the beauty of a free society to be able to discuss these kinds of things.

It has often been said that: “Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.”

Humans are not perfect. No one is completely immune to things like ego, emotions, greed, etc. We all know this, right?

Humans get conditioned by their environment. Someone in power is in an environment where he/she gets his/her way most if not all of the time. Imagine getting used to having your own way.

Even someone with good intent can and often does become corrupted by power.

Someone with evil intent starts out with selfish goals and plans on using others in order to accomplish them. Imagine what this person could do with power.

It is not always easy to tell what someone’s intent truly is. Some are very good at presenting a charming and good-natured facade. So I have to conclude that sometimes persons with evil intent do get elected to power.

We think of corruption as being evil. This makes it difficult to determine when corruption is happening. I don’t think corruption is always evil of itself. Think of corrupted data. Also power does not corrupt all at once. Usually it is over time, in very small increments. It is hardly noticeable in the moment, but accumulates over time. In the end, it can become evil in its effects. Read on…

Absolute power means to have power over everything, and everyone. So by definition, there is no one else with enough power to confront the leader (who has absolute power) when he/she makes a mistake. And everyone makes mistakes.

Being human, no leader can know everything. He/she relies on his/her followers to keep him /her informed. However, have you ever noticed that people do not always tell their leader the complete truth. They don’t want to tell things that they perceive their leader does not want to hear. Even with a leader who encourages truth, some people cannot quite believe it is really what the leader wants. They want to please the leader. This is human nature.

How can one determine truth if one doesn’t have all the information? Even reason fails when you don’t have all the facts. Without honest feedback, one’s perceptions become skewed. We all need feedback from time to time.

Do we rely on each person we elect to power to be able to monitor himself/herself? I think the founders of the United States considered that to be unwise. After all, they wrote the Constitution.

In the Constitution is a system of Checks and Balances. What does this mean? In a general way, it means that in this government, no one is allowed absolute power. “The Three Branches of Government” have oversight rights and responsibilities over each other. You notice they are called “The Three Branches of Government”, not “One Branch of Government With Two Supporting Arms of Government”? I think our founding fathers realized humans are not perfect at their best, and are dangerous at their worst.

As a government “Of the People, For the People, and By the People”; our “Right to Free Speech” and a “Free Press” are two more elements of the “Checks and Balances”. A “Free Press” keeps us informed on current events and issues. The founding fathers even wrote into the Constitution that no law is to be passed that restricts the free press. We have our free speech as a means of discussing our views with each other and conveying our wishes to our leaders. I am telling you, I really don’t think that we were given the right to free speech in the Constitution just so we can stand on street corners to recite poetry! It was intended to give us freedom to dissent, providing a check on the government.

It is a tyrant who does not want the people to be informed. It is a tyrant who does not want anyone to speak against his/her actions. Sound familiar? It should. These last several years, I have heard the current Administration call people “Unpatriotic” for voicing dissent. Is patriotism now to be defined as loyalty to individuals who hold office, or shall we keep patriotism to mean loyalty to the country and the principles upon which it was founded?

I fear I am speaking heresy as regards the current Administration. I argue that it should not be heretical to speak truth. It should not be heretical to defend the principles that created this great country! I say it is I and those like me who are the patriots, and that those who dismantle the Constitution are committing treason. Treason as defined as an attack on the very foundation of our government.

A tyrant wants to keep you in the dark and feed you propaganda. If a tyrant cannot silence the press, don’t you think he/she/they would discredit it, or even manipulate it? I recommend you check out Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. (Get the movie if you can, I rented it from Netflix).

It greatly disturbs me that the current Administration has been dismantling our “Checks and Balances”.

I have heard Bush on national T.V. say that he is going to get the Judicial Branch (of Government) under control. Just in case you missed it, the Judicial Branch of Government is one of those “Three Branches of Government” I mentioned earlier. I have heard him say “I am President, I can do what I want”.

Are these the words of someone who supports the Constitution? Of someone who supports “Checks and Balances”?

More Checks and Balances Violations:

Under Homeland Security Acts, it was made allowable for agents to search your baggage after it has been checked at the airport (without you being present). Although, it may have been written thusly for the best of intentions, it is a bad idea. I understand increasing security if there is a threat. I don’t mind having my baggage searched. I want to be present while it is done, though. Can you guarantee that every agent who searches baggage is honorable? What if they are angry at a particular group of people? What if they are dishonest?

Did you know that the President now has the power to have anyone (he wants) arrested? Also under Homeland Security Acts, all he has to do is declare them a terrorist. He can appoint any agent he chooses to have this same authority. This means that your local police can call you a terrorist and take you away. They don’t have to tell anyone where you are, they don’t have to have any evidence, and they don’t have to tell you the charges. We have been told it is so they can fight terrorism. I want to know what is wrong with needing evidence. Without evidence, how do you know someone is guilty? Again, even if this is written for the best of intentions, it is a bad idea. Can you guarantee that every agent, police officer, etc is honorable? I think not. I periodically see news stories of dishonorable officers of the law getting caught doing a wide variety of bad things. Certainly I believe the great majority are honorable, but not all of them. That is why we have “Checks and Balances” like needing evidence, making formal charges, allowing the prisoner to contact a family member, etc. Sure it is inconvenient, but it protects the rights of the innocent as well as the guilty.

I don’t understand. I don’t understand how we can impeach one president over a sexual act, but we allow another to destroy our Constitution and the principles it represents. Is sex a worse crime than treason?