"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny," Federalist Paper Number 47
I believe that the midterm elections should not only serve as a referendum on the current direction of the country, but also be conducted as a civics debate.
Some might make the argument that this debate has already taken place in the lead up to the war in Iraq. I think not. Whatever debate took place did so under the backdrop of post-9/11 fear.
That fear, along with the desire to be reelected, caused many within the legislative branch to appear patriotic rather than to actually demonstrate their patriotism by asking critical questions. As a result, we have witnessed at crock-pot speed the erosion of divided government.
We are becoming the very embodiment of the worst fears articulated in Federalist Paper, Number 47.
Since 9/11, there has been very little opposition on Capitol Hill, from either side of the political aisle, to the overall direction that president has taken the country. With Republican's controlling the White House and Congress, the wishes of executive branch have been the desires of the legislative branch.
It wasn't until the proposed deal involving a company owned by the United Arab Emirates to manage several U.S. ports became public that Congress reclaimed its constitutional sea legs. It was ironic, yet refreshing, to hear the Republican leadership consider themselves an equal branch of government.
Congress' epiphany notwithstanding, the president has successfully transformed Capitol Hill into the capitulation branch of government through the use of seductive emotional appeals to America's justifiable fear of terrorism.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank writing about former Justice Department attorney and current law school professor, John Yoo's recent speech at the Heritage Foundation, notes that Yoo's understanding of the Constitution suggests that "Congress' warmaking powers are just a figment of the popular imagination."
It was Yoo's legal briefs, while he worked in the Justice Department that justified the administration's treatment of military prisoners and the National Security Agency eavesdropping program.
If his assertions are correct about Congress' warmaking powers, or lack thereof, then every U.S. history teacher that cites Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution should be fired immediately.
Our worse fears resulting from the preemptive invasion in Iraq are being realized. Has anyone bothered to notice that "civil war" is being used more frequently to describe the current situation there?
This is why the midterm elections must be a civics debate. But I am not certain that either party is ready to engage in that discussion.
I was disheartened when it was reported the Major Paul Hackett was asked by Democratic Party leaders in Ohio to drop out of the U.S. Senate race.
The lawyer, Marine reservist, and Iraq war veteran was prepared to run a campaign stating forthrightly, what many Democratic members of Congress are content to nuance: This is the wrong war at the wrong time!
Republicans don't want that debate because it would call into question their lack of authentic leadership; Democrats don't want that conversation because, with few exceptions, they've been preoccupied with staying within the so-called mainstream. This however, does not diminish the fact that the American people need it.
I need to know whether or not Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton are still relevant in what is becoming America's postmodern democracy? Should we continue to be instructed by leaders such as Lincoln and Martin Luther King, who the found the nexus of the public morality in the inspiring words contained within the Declaration of Independence?
If our self-governing underpinnings are still in tact then we must have the debate so that we can change the country's current moral direction. If not, George Orwell has replaced Jefferson as the preeminent architect of American democratic ideals.