“This Unchains the President”: Sen. Merkley Calls for Biden To Circumvent the Congress

When Madison described the essence of his constitutional vision of the separation of powers in Federalist 51, he declared “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Madison believed that the three branches would preserve the balance of the Constitution by using the institutional interests of each branch to jealously protect their inherent powers. He clearly did not envision many of our current leaders in Congress who often call for presidents to circumvent their own institution when they are unable to prevail with legislation. The latest example is Sen. Jeff Merkley (D, Ore.).

In a Washington Post article, Sen. Merkley stated

  “This is an important moment. There is probably nothing more important for our nation and our world than for the United States to drive a bold, energetic transition in its energy economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy. This also unchains the president from waiting for Congress to act.”

The “chains” that Sen. Merkley is referencing are the powers set aside in Article I for Congress to make such decisions through the legislative process. Like so much else today, the suggestion is that one can support the Constitution so long as it yields to your demands. We have heard the same argument with those demanding packing or changing the Supreme Court.

Many Americans misunderstand the separation of powers as simply a division of authority between three branches of government. In fact, it was intended as a protection not of institutional but of individual rights, by preventing any branch from assuming enough power to become tyrannical. No branch is supposed to have enough power to govern alone. Once power becomes concentrated in the hands of a president, citizens are left only with the assurance that such unchecked power will be used wisely – a Faustian bargain the framers repeatedly warned us never to accept.

The Madisonian vision has long been on the decline in Congress. One of the lowest points was the State of the Union address by former President Barack Obama when he announced that he intended to go it alone in achieving his policy goals, refusing to yield to the actions of Congress. One would have expected an outcry, or at least stony silence, from a branch that was being told it would be circumvented. Instead, there was rapturous applause that bordered on a collective expression of institutional self-loathing.

Before members like Sen. Merkley “unchain” a president, they should consider the costs of such constitutional convenience. They should also consider that this president has racked up an impressive array of losses over exceeding his constitutional authority, including the recent loss on climate change before the Supreme Court.  In the wake of that stinging defeat, Sen. Merkley is calling for more of the same — unchaining the President from the limits of both the legislative and judicial branches.

113 thoughts on ““This Unchains the President”: Sen. Merkley Calls for Biden To Circumvent the Congress”

  1. JT failed to mention that one major cause of legislators seeking help from the President on issues is because with the Senate filibuster rule it’s hard to get anything significant done in Congress. Ironically Merkley has been working hard on filibuster reform for over a decade and JT has not supported those efforts. Merkley has also introduced and cosponsored lots of legislation so I don’t think he’s trying to take it easy as some seem to suggest.

    1. The SCOTUS must solicit cases in which it may “decide” America back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is within its enumerated power. As the SCOTUS returned America to constitutionality on Roe v Wade and abortion after 50 years of iniquity, the SCOTUS must revisit Lincoln’s unconstitutional denial of secession and reverse all of the corollaries, “unintended consequences” and nullifications of the Constitution spawned by that crime of high office after 150 years of Lincoln and Marx’s “RECONSTRUCTION of a social world”

    2. one major reason legislators seeking help from the President on issues is because with the Senate filibuster rule it’s hardDemocrats refuse to negotiatie to get anything significant done in Congress.

      1. RE:”one major reason legislators seeking help from the President on issues is because……Democrats refuse to negotiate to get anything significant done in Congress” It is what it is. Either the status quo be preserved, bipartisan reform be achieved, or acquiesce to an ‘Emperor’ and being ruled by decree. One can just imagine an Executive Order banning abortion. The response would make the current outcries look like a church picnic.

    3. Imagine the Republicans win 51 places in the Senate. Imagine further that McConnel brings to the floor a proposal to end the filibuster (he won’t, but indulge the hypothetical). Are you saying he can count on Merkley and the other like-minded Democratic Senators to vote to eliminate it? This scenario reveals the truth about the Democrats. They care nothing about “our democracy.” They care only about getting what they want.

      Regarding the “existential” climate “emergency”. The worst case IPCC scenario for global warming shows very small adverse economic effects by the end of the century. It also says there is so far little evidence of impacts on “extreme weather events.” The climate models are all over the place and diverging not converging. Read Koonin, Lomberg and Shellenberger. Republicans need to fight this propaganda head on. There is no climate crisis.

        1. David, you obviously have not read Koonin, Lomborg or Shellenberger. There is little evidence that climate change has significantly affected extreme weather events, warming and sea level rise are gradual (not catastrophic) and largely within natural variability economic effects are small relative to reasonable growth projections, and vlkk in mate models are unreliable.

      1. Daniel, if you haven’t read Koonin’s book Unsettled you might find it interesting. He uses a lot of the graphs used by the fear merchants, only he doesn’t limit the time studied so one can see that a lot of bull has been pushed.

          1. Great. I thought you might have meant other things he writes, so I wanted to make sure. Additionally I want to push his book because he takes the identical graphs and shows a more complete time line.

      2. “The worst case IPCC scenario for global warming . . .”

        Assuming that global warming is true:

        Why do we never hear about its *benefits*?

        — Fewer deaths from extreme cold (which accounts for about 10X more deaths than extreme heat)

        — More arable land

        — Easier for ships to navigate the Arctic

        And why on Earth would you condemn the fossil-fuel based industrialization that makes it far easier for people to survive “extreme weather” events?

        One might think that their disaster-mania fulfills a nasty wish.

  2. what is it about Oregon and Washington State that makes their politicians so detached from reality and every day concerns of Americans?

    This is an important moment. There is probably nothing more important for our nation and our world than for the United States ….


    White House says it won’t declare climate emergency this week

    One wonders what Biden’s handlers are sniffing, smoking or slamming into their blue blood veins. Climate emergency. SMH

    meanwhile, reality bites:

    The latest CNN poll showed that 68% of U.S. adults believe Biden’s priorities are wrong and that the president hasn’t paid enough attention to critical issues facing Americans, like the economy and inflation.
    – CNN Poll July 18, 2022


  3. Soooooo . . . if the president can bypass congress for a good cause, what purpose does Senator Merkley and the other members of congress serve? As a man of principle (cough cough), why doesn’t he (and the rest of congress) simply resign and let the chief executive do his thing?

  4. Adolph Hitler governed by executive orders (“Fuehrer Befehlungen”) from March 1933 to April 1945. He would have been better off if he’d allowed the legislature to operate. But, of course, there was an “emergency”.

  5. Speaking of Madison and the 3 branches, if we can make it another 19 years, that will be the centennial anniversary of the last formal Declaration of War — despite the incessant military operations we get involved in.
    The War machine is very pleased.



    “…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    – Hamilton

    Article 2, Section 4

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

    Strictly obey fundamental law or be prosecuted for crimes of high office.

    The singular American failure has been the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.

    That failure must have been prosecuted, beginning with the rendition which occurred on April 12, 1861, when Lincoln engaged in “executive overreach” and unconstitutionally denied fully constitutional secession (slavery must have ended legally – confederate states would have reunited of necessity – have confidence).

    It’s been all down-the-communist-hill ever since.

    Members of the executive and judicial branches must have been impeached.

    1. Lincoln’s election sparked the secession of slave states not because they knew he would end slavery where it already existed, but because they knew Lincoln would not allow slavery (that “filthy business” – George Washington’s words to describe slavery) to expand westward and possibly north as new states were added. Slave states started confiscating Union assets(Harpers Ferry arsenal, etc,) before Lincoln was even inaugurated. While attempting to seize Fort Sumpter, a Union asset, the Confederacy fired the first shot – this started the war – not Lincoln. He considered the Confederates as insurrectionists and not secessionists. The suspension of Habeas Corpus was probably impeachable, but he said if he didn’t do it there would be no Union to protect. Without the Civil War, I wonder how long people would have remained in bondage before slavery finally “died out”? Too long!

  7. Millions of Obama voters were robbed of about 100 federal judge picks and a U.S. Supreme Court pick for purely partisan reasons. Republicans in Congress placed party over representing the people in their state.

    The Founding Fathers designed a bi-cameral system, they never designed political parties into the system. Having said that, they would have supported the two party system only if it created healthy checks & balances to benefit the nation. Today’s Republicans used this system to harm the nation’s interests.

    When will millions of Obama voters get their judges back?

    1. Will those of us who revere the logical interpretation of the constitution have the opportunity to have Supreme Court Justice who knows what the definition of a woman is?

    2. Obama will never be a “natural born citizen,” and Obama will never be eligible for the office of president of the United States. Harris ditto. Thank the global, communist, Deep Deep State Swamp.

    3. Obama traded those judges for his “I have a pen and a phone” style of leadership. He was never interested in building coalitions. He was never interested in having the public or Congress invested in his vision. He always said “we’re going to do it my way or else.” Well, he got the “or else.” Had he actually led instead of trying to bully, he could have had the public on his side. But he never cared what the peasants thought. If the people had clamored to have Obama’s judges confirmed, they would have been. At some point, you have to earn cooperation and support. Presidents can’t go through their terms with no tactics other than coercion and petulance. Obama never had anything else.

      1. You don’t get it.

        Constitutional justice doesn’t have a concern about what Obama was interested in or what he did or did not do.

        Obama must have NEVER been there.

        Funfact: Obama himself knows he is ineligible.

    4. When will republicans and independents get their country back ?. One political party for decades has up front supported , encouraged and funded massive illegal aliens flooding our lands. Destroying commonality of language and culture that is the glue of our society. Such massive waves of which the majority are barely literate in their own language let alone english. So when does that get put right ?. AZ your argument cuts both ways , only your party is directly dumbing down and watering down this country’s civil adhesive and the very thing that makes America great – a melting pot where cultures and language assimilate to American language and traditions.


        “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

        – Alexander Hamilton

      2. Whose “melting pot?”

        Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations for clarity, in full force and effect on January 1, 1863)

        United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

    5. Never, that ship has sailed.
      Democrats and the media harassed Trump throughout his term based on things they made up. When will he get his term back?
      Never, that ship has sailed.

  8. Madison believed that the three branches would preserve the balance of the Constitution by using the institutional interests of each branch to jealously protect their inherent powers.

    Idealism meets Realism. In Federalist 48 he said: Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defence is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful members of the government.

    Which leads to what he said in Federalist 46: Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

  9. What people like Sen. Merkly love about giving the President Congress’ power, is that being a Senator or Congressman, becomes so much easier. No need to introduce or read legislation. No need to debate about whether good or bad. Just allow the President to be a dictator, and hope for the best. If things don’t work out, no problem…just go after the President you gave the power to and pass the blame.
    Since Sen. Merkly wants to give up his power to the President, it would only be just, if he also gave up his salary and perks commensurate with that decision.

  10. “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton


    And, of course, central planning is a principle of communism.

    The Constitution provides freedom, free enterprise, and free markets, without interference and intercession by government.

    Consumer demand constitutes central planning in free America under the Constitution.

    Free enterprises, acting in free markets, provide what free consumers demand.

    The Constitution effectively criminalizes central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering, by severely and sternly limiting and restricting government.

    Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have no power or authority to compel governmental organizations to act in commerce, to act as private enterprise, to facilitate private enterprise, or facilitate private enterprise or commercial activities through the tax code.

    Most governmental departments and agencies are unconstitutional, and exist illegally under no power enumerated by Article 1, Section 8.

    Antithetical, anti-American, anti-Constitution communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in elected or appointed office must be impeached and convicted for egregiously failing to fulfill their sworn oath to support the Constitution, violating the Constitution, abuse of power, usurpation of power et al.

  12. The US Constitution reflects some enduring values about the wisdom of distributing power (avoiding its concentration). But, the Constitution is somewhat weaker on the clear appointment of responsibility. This is not a great position to be in for a fast-paced, technological superpower.

    Just one example….cybercrime (including cyberextortion, and cyberattacks). Here we are 20+ years into the problem (one which was clearly predicted when computers began being connected through telephone modems), and there is still no clear person or entity responsible for devising an effective national cybersecurity architecture or design. It’s mostly “every person (org) for themselves”, even though the attackers are often state-sponsored. As taxpayers, we have spent 10s of billions on “national cybersecurity”, yet everyday a corporate executive or City Manager finds his organization being attacked.

    Greenhouse gas buildup is a 100-year-old problem, and we cannot pin down responsibility to avoid an atmospheric runaway catastrophe. Many thought the EPA had clear responsibility. Now it turns out the Supreme Court is more interested in the EPA’s power to regulate industry than who is responsible for the atmosphere and climate.

    The tech giants have radically changed the infosphere, including the one surrounding campaigns and elections, and nobody is responsible for countering deceitful infowarfare (it’s every org for themselves). The 2024 election year looks very spooky if the same unrestrained infowarfare games determine the outcome. That will leave many distrustful of democracy.

    The atmosphere doesn’t get a vote. Americans who’ll be born in 2050 don’t get a vote.

    Yet some are foolish enough to think the US Constitution (as is) is all we need to get through the next 100 years. The trade-offs needed to cope intelligently are not appearing. Yet a real-time coping response is critical to success.

    The best hope would be a new set of Amendments that clarify responsibilities — those without which America is bound to falter even further than at present.

    1. “The best hope would be a new set of Amendments that clarify responsibilities — those without which America is bound to falter even further than at present.”

      – pbinca

      How ’bout the Communist Manifesto, would that do?

      It did for “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, Karl Marx’s “earnest of the epoch to come,” leading America toward “the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”

      Lincoln espoused Marx’s pejoratives, “capitalist” and “fleece the people” in 1837, and initiated the PROGRESSIVE, incremental implementation of the principles of communism and “the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world” in America, from the denial of fully constitutional secession and the “achievements” of his successors, through the “red wave” of Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Clinton, to Obama and Biden (the entire American welfare state is unconstitutional).

      “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”

      – Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837

      “Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”

      – Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848

      “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

      – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

      “The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”

      – Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864

      Letter of congratulation and commendation from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

      I have a crazy idea: Implement the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      Oh, and go back 150 years just as the SCOTUS recently went back 50 years to correct the irrefutably unconstitutional Roe v Wade, and implement corrective legislative action, finding that secession was constitutional in 1860 – as, in reality, it was. Now that would be a game changer, changing America back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations for clarity).

      “Whoomp! (There it is).”

      1. Putting words in other people’s mouths?……that’s a first grade approach to meritocratic debate. You can do better.

        One Amendment I would like to see is to de-partisanize the 3 big Federal leadership Offices. The President, Speaker, and VP (Presiding Officer of Senate) would be clarified as being non-partisan leadership positions responsible fo the productivity of their institutions. These Offices would be redefined as neutral, referee, process manager positions obliged to stand astride or above partisan interests and force constructive conflict.

        1. The SCOTUS went back 50 years to correct Roe v Wade. Now the SCOTUS must go back 150 years to correct Lincoln’s denial of secession which, in turn will correct all of the unconstitutional “unintended consequences” of the acts of Lincoln during his “Reign of Terror” and those of his successors, and put America back on the track of the Constitution of the Founders, including the dominion of their Constitution, their restricted-vote republic, and their immigration law of 1802, in full force and effect in 1863. Taney tried on the suspension of habeas corpus, but he must have begun with secession.



          “On May 28, Taney issued an oral opinion, which was followed by a written opinion a few days later. He stated that the Constitution clearly intended for Congress, and not the President, to have to power to suspend the writ during emergencies.

          ‘The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department,’ Taney argued. ‘I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power,’ Taney concluded.

          “However, Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,” he said. But Taney did order that a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.”

          – Constitution Daily


          1. George you do not need my permission, but in this one instance, I give you my full blessing if you wished to rain hell on this chest thumping Democrat, a racist bigot, for his hateful, incendiary, racist blog mischaracterizing Congresswoman Mayra Flores. I never thought I would see such a thing today towards a Hispanic Member of Congress, but here we are.



            here is the guy that runs it

            brownsville literary review

            The Democrats are no longer the party for minorities.

          2. It’s the “Butterfly Effect.”

            “Crazy Abe” Lincoln fluttered his unconstitutional secession wings and, after 162 years, the once-free American republic was “fundamentally transformed” into a third world communist sump.

        2. The sole charge of the judicial branch is to assure that actions comport with law and fundamental law; it has failed miserably beginning with Lincoln’s denial of secession and those “unintended consequences.”

          The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

          Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use. If the right to private property is not absolute, there is no private property, and all property is public.

          Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.

        3. The last thing we need or want is an efficient government. History is replete with examples of that, none of them good.

    2. Greenhouse gas buildup is a 100-year-old problem, and we cannot pin down responsibility to avoid an atmospheric runaway catastrophe

      That is eminately debatable. What is not debatable. The cure being demanded has zero evidence of effectiveness.

    3. 10’s of billions of dollars (or more) are collected as federal fuel taxes every year, yet we still have broken bridges and roads from 20+ years ago in use today. That’s what happens when federal politicians can simply redirect incoming monies from the People and the States and re-spend them on Congress’ whims. The solution isn’t to send more money to Washington to solve local problems, including cyber-security efforts. Better to hire private entities to fight the good cyber fight (and fix the needed roads) by redirecting local dollars to those local issues “before” ever sending another dime to the Central Planners in DC.

      1. The swamp will never cede power they now have. Their ability – art we should say to subvert and convert funding to do and or go anywhere their hearts desire is unchecked and unchallenged with no repercussions. They would not give up this filthy lucre without one helluva fight. A fight long overdue.

  13. Democrats can’t win unless they cheat, and they can’t pass bills when they have both House and Senate so they have to go the rogue way….Why do we have a Congress at all?? There is a reason WHY there are checks and balances. I guess that isn’t good enough anymore. NOW…. We have a dictatorship.

  14. This has been happening for a long time. Congress does not write laws anymore; they write “summaries” -must be a better word for what they do – then let bureaucrats write the details. As we know, politicians and bureaucrats are only interested in keeping and increasing their power. What a way to govern.
    As an aside, is the Dept of Education constitutional. I read constitution to say that education is a state responsibility. Same for a lot of other fed depts.

      1. Therein lies the problem. Congress is tasked by the US Constitution with writing, debating, and passing laws for the President to sign (or veto). They are not tasked to write ‘framework(s)’ for the Executive branch’s unelected agents and agencies to interpret as they hope and wish the Congress meant.

        1. Agree wholeheartedly. They have foisted the hard work off on to the executive branch whose unelected bureaucrats have an unquenchable thirst for power. If Congress took their jobs seriously there would only 10% (or less) of the BS laws now passed each year.

    1. That’s why the West Virginia v EPA decision was so important to begin unwinding the federal administrative state.

  15. Dimwit AOC gets lead away by cops from Supreme Court with hands behind her back to appear handcuffed. But this lamebrain cannot resist putting her fist in the air. Then returns to ” handcuffed position”. Talk about political theatre.

  16. The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money. a Liberal World Order majority can cede all their power to the Executive and nothing short of a revolution can stop them. Alexis De Tocqueville

    Prove me wrong.

    1. FYI

      “There’s a smart observation that we find in columns now and then. It is usually attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish judge from a couple hundred years back. Sometimes it’s credited to Alexis de Tocqueville. And it goes like this, give or take a word:

      ‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.'”

      – Arkansas Democrat Gazette

      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

      – Alexander Fraser Tytler

      The Prentis Cycle

      In a 1943 address to the University of Pennsylvania entitled Tʜᴇ Cᴜʟᴛ ᴏғ Cᴏᴍᴘᴇᴛᴇɴᴄʏ (later reprinted as Iɴᴅᴜsᴛʀɪᴀʟ Mᴀɴᴀɢᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ ɪɴ ᴀ Rᴇᴘᴜʙʟɪᴄ), Prentis described what has become known as The Prentis Cycle in which, he asserted, “popular self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within”, as:

      From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.[5]

      In a 1946 book, Prentis renamed one stage of the cycle and added two stages. The cycle, as revised, is:

      From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to freedom; from freedom to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency ; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to fear; from fear to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.[6]

      – Wiki



      Thank you. Now you know why the Greeks, the Romans and the Americans all severely restricted the vote. The U.S. began with the general vote criteria” Male, European, Age 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres. Turnout was 11.6% in 1788. Never was one man, one vote democracy intended by the Framers who gave States the power to apply vote criteria. Lincoln’s successors collectivized America and, apparently, codified the end of the application of vote criteria by States. Karl Marx letter to Lincoln: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

      “the people are nothing but a great beast…

      I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

      “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
      “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

      – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

      “[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”

      – Ben Franklin, 1787

    3. Olly , All too true, all too true. Sadly our goobermint will get more oppressive and evil before it ever gets checked. With the dumbing down of our education system , the constant attack on “moralities” and flooding us with effective illiterates that do not speak English all on purpose to use a “majority” of sheeple to cede the peoples rights to the fed god – forever, and thus we all become wards of big brother.

  17. Clown show continues as Senator seeks to bow before a king of his own making. What a pathetic excuse for ̶a̶n̶ ̶A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n a human

  18. Once again the Democrats prove the danger they are to America, the constitution and the American people.

    1. Margot,
      I respectfully disagree.
      I know more than a few Dems, and they are looking on at what their party has embraced and are reacting in shock and horror.
      My one friend is a registered Dem, only because his work place is union.
      But in this day and age of Bidenflation, wokeism that has popped up at his work place, there is a degree of anger and hostility in the air to the point the union bosses are uneasy.

      1. Upstatefarmer- unfortunately the silence of the “more than a few” your acquainted with are allowing the even smaller few misdirect the “more than a few”.
        PS: How’s the crop this year?

        1. Margot,
          We have been lucky compared to our farmer friends in the West and Southwest. We have been getting rain on a regular basis.
          Now, prices of nearly everything are up. I know of some ranchers who are selling their beef early and lot of it to avoid having to carry them over the winter. Might see a drop in meat prices in the short term, but in the long term, prices will go up.
          Read an article about how crops are faring in Kansas. One farmer noted at this time of year, wheat should be knee high and green. His fields, as he put it, ankle high hay. Not good.
          I think we are going to see much smaller yields this harvest (drought, price of fertilizer, fuel) and that will result in higher prices starting around the end of summer and beginning of fall.
          I think food inflation will go even higher later this year, and into the next.
          I am concerned for those Americans on the lower end of the economic scale. I fear the lines at food banks will be longer then they were during the COVID lockdowns.
          Thank you for asking.

  19. Well, they’re not rushing the Capitol so Democrats aren’t concerned that their president, with their blessing, is destroying the system even more effectively than the Jan. 6th crowd.

Leave a Reply