[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Donald Trump, Democratic Dictator Some people think that the United States is safe from dictatorship because the country is a democracy. It’s only in totalitarian countries, they hold, that people are subject to dictatorship. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such people are confusing how a ruler gets elected with the powers that the ruler has after being elected. A democratically elected ruler can wield and exercise dictatorial powers. Case in point: President Donald Trump. He is the democratically elected president of the United States. He also wields and exercises dictatorial power over the American people. The system of government that the Framers established with the Constitution provided for three branches of government — executive, legislative, and judicial. The Constitution delegated certain powers to each branch. The legislative branch was charged with enacting laws, including laws that imposed taxes on people. The executive branch was charged with enforcing the laws. The judicial branch was charged with interpreting the laws and, if need be, declaring them unconstitutional. In a dictatorship, the dictator doesn’t have to concern himself with legislation or judicial interpretation. What he says goes. When he issues a dictate, it automatically becomes set in stone as the law. Trump’s conduct in his trade war with China confirms how far the United States has gone in the direction of a democratically elected dictatorship. Notice that Trump initiated his trade war all on his own, by unilaterally raising tariffs on products that are imported from China. He didn’t go to Congress and seek a law that raised tariffs. He just issued the dictate that raised tariffs. That is classic dictatorship. The ruler issues an order, which automatically becomes law. And keep in mind that a tariff is nothing more than a sales tax on foreign goods. The people who pay that tax are Americans who purchase Chinese goods. Therefore, under the dictatorial system under which modern-day Americans live, the democratically elected dictator wields the authority to levy whatever amounts of taxes he wishes to collect from the American people. Over the weekend, the American people received another stark example of Trump’s dictatorial conduct. Angry over the fact that China hasn’t bowed to his demands and instead is retaliating with its own tariffs on American products, Trump declared, “Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China including bringing …your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.” That is an incredible command. Did you ever think live in a country where the ruler could issue orders to private individuals, as though they were in the army? A necessary feature of a free society is that people are required to answer only to duly enacted laws, not to arbitrary and capricious orders and dictates of their ruler. Trump clearly doesn’t get that. He thinks that because he is “commander in chief” of the armed forces, that makes him the commanding officer of the American people. Congress isn’t innocent in this process, for it is Congress that has enacted laws delegating to the president the authority to issue these types of dictatorial decrees. The Framers, however, never intended for one branch of government to delegate its powers to another branch of government. Where is the federal judiciary in all this? Isn’t it their job to declare laws that violate the Constitution unconstitutional. That’s the way it used to be. For example, in the 1935 case of A.L.A. Schechter v. United States, the Supreme Court declared the Franklin Roosevelt administration’s fascist National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional. The Court’s reason? The law improperly delegated congressional power to enact laws to the president and, therefore, had to be declared unconstitutional. So, why hasn’t the U.S. Supreme Court done the same with respect to the laws on which Trump is relying? Two reasons: First, shortly after President Roosevelt came out with his infamous “court-packing” scheme, which would enable him to pack the Court with cronies who would uphold his socialist and fascist programs, the Court made it clear that it would never again interfere with congressional enactments relating to economic activity. The Court has followed that policy ever since. Second, the laws on which Trump is relying enable the president to cite “national security,” the most important and meaningless term in the American political lexicon. All that Trump has to do to justify his dictatorial orders, decrees, edicts, and dictates is declare “‘National security is at stake.” At that point the issue is settled. That’s because after the federal government was converted to a national-security state after World War II, the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that it would never second-guess any action of the president, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA that is based on “national security.” That’s how America has ended up with a democratically elected dictator. But hey, let’s look at the bright side: At least Trump is not as bad as Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the unelected conservative military dictator who the Pentagon and CIA installed into power in Chile back in the 1970s. Like Trump, he too loved issuing decree-laws, without interference from a legislature or judiciary. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest He didn’t go to Congress and seek a law that raised tariffs. He just issued the dictate that raised tariffs. The last time Congress regulated tariffs it led to the Civil War. In 1934, Congress passed the Reciprocal Tariff Act ceding the power to the President. They can take it back any time they want to, but more than likely they'll do what they did before -- use it to promote certain industries or regions in the U.S..
#2. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#0) (Edited) Nothing could be further from the truth. Such people are confusing how a ruler gets elected with the powers that the ruler has after being elected. A democratically elected ruler can wield and exercise dictatorial powers. A trite and alarmist piece. Every democracy that I know of has provisions for a president or prime minister to assume greatly enhanced war powers or to invoke martial law and the suspension of normal civil rights. So in this sense, Franklin Roosevelt was a dictator. So was Abraham Lincoln. Arguably, you could include Woodrow Wilson too. Yet their powers were derived from democratic process with broad support at a time of national peril or unrest.
#3. To: Deckard (#0) President Donald Trump. He is the democratically elected president of the United States. He also wields and exercises dictatorial power over the American people.You are once again posting another fearmongering article and spreading exaggerated claims. Will your ever gain control over your “idiocracy”? Try…
#4. To: misterwhite, Deckard, Hondo68 (#1) The last time Congress regulated tariffs it led to the Civil War. It wasn't tariffs at all. It was a huge tax increase in taxes that primarily would hit the slave states, essentially creating a tax windfall for Northern states at the expense of the South. Those in the North were (mostly) correct that the South had underpaid in taxes and evaded tax enforcement for some time. But it was the insistence on this huge tax increase that sparked the Civil War even if one could argue that it was competition from cheap labor by slaves that really aroused the most anger among voters in the North. It was never about freeing the slaves at all, nor was it about tariffs because no one was trying to import cotton to undercut the South's mainstay crop. Even the heartland of genuine antislavery sentiment in the North, Massachussetts, membership in abolitionist organizations never reached 2% of the population. So there were principled abolitionists but they were rarely heard and really had no political capital to speak of. Lincoln did promise in his inaugural not only to respect the institution of slavery but also to support a constitutional amendment to strengthen slavery in perpetuity. That was the Corwin Amendment, designed to protect "domestic institutions" from any further attempts to amend the Constitution to ban slavery or to free those currently held as legal slaves or their descendants. You could never legally outlaw slavery by any means if it had passed. So Lincoln had no objections to slavery really and certainly enjoyed spending summers vacationing at his in-laws' plantation being waited on by slaves. What Lincoln did promise in his inaugural was that as long as the South paid this greatly increased tax that was levied just prior to his election and which he adamantly supported, that no federal army would ever invade the South. This was, in effect, the spark that ignited the conflagration. Slavery forever but pay these extortionate taxes now or we'll raise a federal army to invade the South. That was the gist of Lincoln's inaugural. The Civil War broke out in short order as a result, largely due to Lincoln's explicit threat to invade the South. Surprising how little known these fundamental and easily understood facts are. Yet the historians and pols and textbook writers go to considerable lengths to conceal these most basic facts from the public, preferring to peddle fables to the gullible public, comparable to the myth of Geo. Washington chopping down the cherry tree and the hoary confession, "Father, I cannot tell a lie. It was I." A useful aphorism to promote the confession of misdeeds as a worthy character attribute but which has no basis in fact nor can any evidence be mustered for this Washingtonian fairy tale.
#5. To: Tooconservative (#4) Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil civil-war/
#6. To: Deckard (#0) Deckhand, you have the patience of Job! Sifting through all this propaganda to find something that fits within your anti-Trump agenda. I never heard of this one before and certainly wouldn't waste my time reading it. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs. #7. To: misterwhite, Deckard, Hondo68 (#5) https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil civil-war/ You're simply promoting the pet historical theory of some wealth fund manager who craves public attention. And his idea is derivative, not original. It's derived from the historical perspective of my previous post. Do you even realize that Marotta is actually supporting exactly what I posted above? What taxes did you think I was talking about above that would further disadvantage the South, taxes that Lincoln intended to collect at federal gunpoint with an invading army? IOW, Marotta is on my side of the argument. He just doesn't go far enough because he addresses only finances and taxes, not the political dimension that I presented as well. It was the combination that sparked the Civil War. Marotta's piece would actually fit in well at the Von Mises Institute's website except that it would be considered too unoriginal in scholarship. It is amusing when your opponent ends up proving your own case while thinking they are somehow refuting it. So thanks for the help. I accept your (unwitting) concession and your humiliation.
#8. To: Tooconservative (#7) Do you even realize that Marotta is actually supporting exactly what I posted above? Sure, if you're calling a tariff a tax.
#9. To: misterwhite, Deckard, Hondo68 (#8) (Edited) Sure, if you're calling a tariff a tax. Oh. Well, why don't we consult your own cited expert source, Marotta, on whether a tariff is a tax or not? Fair enough?
Perhaps you should write to Mr. Marotta and explain to him that a tariff is not a tax and that he should re-write his article. I think he'd really enjoy that; it would make his day. When you're standing in a hole, you really should stop digging. Stop trying to play word games when you clearly don't grasp what the words actually mean.
#10. To: Tooconservative (#9) I've posted before that a tariff is a specific tax. My understanding is not the issue here. YOU'RE the one claiming that Congress imposed taxes on the South because they weren't paying their share. ("It wasn't tariffs at all. It was a huge tax increase in taxes that primarily would hit the slave states, essentially creating a tax windfall for Northern states at the expense of the South.") So, what were you referring to?
#11. To: misterwhite (#10) I said: "It was a huge tax increase in taxes that primarily would hit the slave states, essentially creating a tax windfall for Northern states at the expense of the South. Those in the North were (mostly) correct that the South had underpaid in taxes and evaded tax enforcement for some time." I referred to a "huge tax increase" that created "a tax windfall for Northern states at the expense of the South." I also suggested, in line with the best scholarship, that the South had underpaid the previous tariff and had evaded tax enforcement of the existing tax (prior to the North raising those same taxes through the roof). As I recall from memory, the North was bent on tripling a tax that was already perceived as unfair. The North mostly did this to fund the building of bridges and roads and canals, most of which somehow ended up getting built in the North along with most federal facilities. So the South didn't even get federal jobs or facilities in return for paying for them. At any rate, your quoted source did agree with me with some caveats. If you want to see a variety of views on the economic justice of the issue, you could look at Von Mises website. They have a number of papers on the subject. Here's an excerpt from a 2014 Thomas Woods review of Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War by Robert B. Ekelund, Jr. and Mark Thornton:
#12. To: Tooconservative (#11) Those in the North were (mostly) correct that the South had underpaid in taxes "... the tariff accounted for 95 percent of all federal tax revenues in the 1860s." I'd say the South overpaid in taxes, but hey, what do I know.
#13. To: misterwhite (#12) (Edited) I'd say the South overpaid in taxes, but hey, what do I know. I lean toward that view but I can't say I've ever seen the hard data. Mostly, we see summaries but not the data itself. I'd say that the libertarian historians (Von Mises types, Austrian types) all lean hard in that direction. Also, the Austrians always have an ax to grind on money creation and inflation. Always. So often we rely on biased summaries by some historian or economist. Besides, it would be hateful if you and I discovered we actually agreed, no?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||||
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|