From Part I…
…a sincere movement among members of Congress to look beyond their own ambitions would begin the process of restoring a true sense of citizen responsibility throughout the American electorate. Instead of a politics of enforced narcissism, replete with stories about the self-promoting competition of ambitious individuals, America would witness the sobering spectacle of their representatives lifting up the lamp of their goodwill for the people, with no thought but to find the best person to champion their cause in the battle to restore respect for the sovereign responsibility the U.S. Constitution entrusts to the people. (Choice for Speaker: Could Reps actually do the right thing?)
The anti-constitutional elitist faction political paradigm was already at work in the idea of the Gingrich-directed “Contract with America.” A contractual relationship is predicated on the notion that the parties involved are equally obliged to respect its terms. But in what sense can there be such an equal and reciprocal obligation between an elected representative and the person or persons being represented? Given the nature of representation, the priority between them is not established by the terms of the contract, but by the terms in being, apart from the contract, that ascribe the initiative in their relationship to the person or persons being represented.
In the context of constitutional politics in the United States, the terms in being , apart from any contract, are a) the laws of nature and of Nature’s God and b) the God-endowed unalienable rights that arise from God’s will as the Creator of all things, including human beings. On account of these terms, which precede and transcend the representational relationship between the contracting parties, the disposition of the people takes precedence over the disposition of their representative. In other words, the people always retain the initiative, which includes, above all, the prerogative to demand a change in the disposition of their representative.
Put simply, where a dispositive difference arises between them, the people are not bound to support (i.e., uphold by their action) the disposition of the representative. But their representative is bound to uphold in action the disposition of the people. Otherwise, he fails to represent them. The only question that may arise in this respect has to do with what constitutes the substantive disposition of the people, i.e., the disposition of their being that corresponds to its enduring nature. But according to the premises from which the American people take the initiative that establishes their claim to speak with the voice of sovereign power, the substance of their enduring nature depends on the will of their Creator, not simply their own will. Both they and their chosen representatives must look to the Creator’s will to ascertain the limits and purposes that substantiate their use of governmental authority.
The representative is therefore bound to vote according to the disposition of the people, but they can never be under any reciprocal obligation. In this respect, they rule on any differences that arise, much as we are the ones who determine the movement of the hand or arm of our reflection in a mirror. But in this respect our body politic may do routinely what is far more difficult if not impossible for our organic body- If our members in Congress offend us, we can replace them with more compliant ones.
To this end, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution took care to provide for periodic elections. Because the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were intended more particularly to reflect the actual disposition of the people, their faithful representation of the people, or the lack thereof, is more frequently put to the test. When the electoral system functions properly, therefore, the House should more and more become the focal point for expressing the people’s dissatisfaction whenever the U.S. Government consistently fails to represent the goodwill of the American people.
The elitist faction’s electoral sham makes no pretense of serving this function. In fact, under that paradigm the constitutional purpose of elections has not only been abandoned, it has been turned upside down. Its purpose is not to elect representatives of the people, but to marshal the people behind “leaders”, pre-selected by the elitists, leaders whom the people are then obliged to support. After the 2014 elections, for example, instead of promising loyally to represent the people who elected them to oppose Obama, the GOP’s quisling leaders immediately demanded that their GOP constituents loyally support them as they moved “to govern” in complicity with Obama. In the minds of these quisling leaders, the purpose of elections is “to govern”, not to represent. The people are no more than foot soldiers in their campaigns to conquer the government. When they succeed they govern by right of conquest, not as representatives of the God-endowed right of the people to govern themselves.
In line with this mentality, Paul Ryan is now, reportedly, seeking to blackmail his colleagues into pledging their “unconditional” support for his rule, if he deigns to serve as Speaker of the House. But this means that the House no longer consists of representatives of the people who elected them. It rather consists of slavish minions, pledged to do the will of dictators they elect “to govern”, without regard for what ought to be their loyalty to the people they are supposed to represent.
Thus the right principle of representative government is discarded. It is replaced by the specious right of political conquest. Instead of political contests that affirm the rightfully God-revering sovereignty of the people, elections become ballot box wars of conquest in which the people have no more say than the bullets their ballots symbolically replace.
As the so-called race for Speak of the House unfolds, in accordance with the plainly tyrannical premises of the elitist faction political paradigm, it confirms the utter corruption of the existing party sham. People who play along with it inevitably lend themselves and their resources to the destruction of America’s rightful liberty. There is only one course of action that might make a decisive difference in our nation’s fate: People of goodwill must find a way to seize the political initiative themselves, circumventing the elitist faction sham and reviving the true meaning of representation without which our Constitution becomes a façade for tyranny.
The key to doing so is revealed in the Constitution itself, in the logic of the provisions it makes for the election of the President of the United States and the President of the U.S. Senate. It may be our last clear chance to avoid the demise of our God-endowed unalienable right of liberty. Who is willing, therefore, to examine it with care, as befits people anxious to preserve the country they profess to love?
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.