Posted by “An informed lawyer”
http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/10/yes-we-can-crises-used-as-pretense-for.html
‘Yes We Can’ – ‘Crises’ Used as Pretense for EURO-Socialist Global Governance Wealth Redistribution – ‘Change We Can Believe In’
OUTLINE
I. Introduction
II. European and Certain U.S. Leaders Are Using the Exaggerated Climate ‘Crisis’ as a Pretense for Strict New Global Governance Wealth Redistribution Regulations to Save the World from the Enviromental Externalities ‘Triggered’ by Anglo-American Market-based Capitalism
III. European and Certain U.S. Leaders Have Characterized the Current Financial ‘Crisis’ as One of Capitalism’, and Are Using it as a Pretense to Reform Global Financial Markets as Part of an Overall Effort to Create a NEW Global Governance Regime Intended to ‘Save’ Anglo-American Market-based Capitalism From Itself’
IV. European and Certain U.S. Leaders Have Called for Global Financial Governance Reforms Based on Feared Similarities Between the Causes of 19th Century Globalization and the Current Era of Globalization. Certain U.S. Leaders Also Seek to Use This ‘Crisis’ as an Opportunity to Complete Their Long-Term ‘European Experiment’ Gone Awry
V. List of Sources (set forth below in order of appearance)
————————————————————————————————-
I. Introduction:
The following articles demonstrate efforts being undertaken by current and former public officials in Europe and the United States to sensationalize and exploit ‘CRISES’ (both real – financial and exaggerated – climate change) to justify the imposition, at the national, regional and global levels, of more public regulation of private economic activities. This pretense for more governmental control of peoples’ private economic lives is NOT CONDITIONED ON the need to establish reasonable and fair ‘rule of law’ substantive and procedural benchmarks (verifiable empirical science, economic cost-benefit analysis, political checks and balances/balance of powers – accountability, transparency and ‘due process) for the public benefit and consistent with individual rights. Unfortunately, the strict rules and regulations called for will, no doubt, impair individual rights and national sovereignty. They also fall outside the requirements of due process, transparency and political accountability which are guaranteed to ALL U.S. citizens by the U.S. Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights.
These ‘leaders’ implore their public constitutents to simply ‘trust’ in their knowledge, judgment, foresight and grandiose ‘reputations’ when, in reality, it is precisely their LACK OF wisdom, knowledge, foresight, sincerity and judgment that we all should be suspect of and concerned about!
NO. The burden is on governmental officials to present to the public credible evidence that substantiates and differentiates the real risks from the potential but remote hazards they have exaggerated, and which they claim must be reduced or eliminated (i.e., problems they wish to solve) immediately. If they are unable to prove that there is an urgent problem that necessitates ‘fixing’ in the first place AND that their recommended solutions to the problem identified provide the best ‘fix’ at ‘the least cost’ to individuals’ political and economic rights, especially that of exclusive private property, then they CANNOT go forward with their proposals and/or recommendations, for they will NOT have the consent of the governed.
In the United States, the legitimacy of the ‘rule of law’ and the license to be governed by all branches of the U.S. Government, including the Executive, Legislative AND Judicial branches, derives from the consent of the American people. Former U.S. President Abraham Lincoln clearly recognized that the American nation was: 1) “conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”; 2) uniquely and flexibly structured to serve the needs and interests of both the individual and the American people as a whole; and 3) one in which the government is constrained (limited) by the ‘rule of law’ (rather than based upon the ‘rule of men’), founded on the universal principles set forth within the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights. It is worth repeating to these ‘leaders’ that, the U.S. Government has long derived its legitimacy ONLY from the consent of the governed – i.e., the American people. THIS IS NOT EUROPE, WHERE THE PEOPLE DERIVE THEIR RIGHTS FROM THE GRACE OF THE GOVERNMENT!!
Arguably, the governing documents of the United States are as unique in today’s world as they were when they were adopted during the 18th Century. The U.S. nation remains the oldest and most stable form of representative democracy (a true republic) in the world today. Thus, it would immeasurably benefit peoples around the world (but not perhaps their elitist leaders and governments) if these documents served as the framework for a new global ‘rule of law’ system of Governance ‘Of the People, By the People, and For the People’.
According to one European legal expert:
“The purpose of the rule of law is to tame the discretionary power of government and thus enable individuals to pursue their private ends in efficiency-friendly way[s]. On the other hand, the rule of men is about the power of the ruling group to make discretionary changes in the pursuit of its own ends. A major difference between the rule of law and the rule of men is that the rule of law requires a well-defined, stable and credible process by which formal rules can be changed. In a rule of men state, changes in formal rules are a vehicle through which the ruling group seeks its ends.”
For example,
“…the European regulators historical inclination is to subjugate individual rights and freedoms to social obligations and socially beneficial causes.” International law experts agree that European citizens are deemed to enjoy only a positive implied conditional right to private property that is highly subject to collective power and the public interest that is, the general will.
“[T]he constitutional rights of European citizens have long been viewed as positive rights granted by the state to the people, rather than as negative rights of the people recognized by the state.”
“A brief review of German legal and political history is quite revealing. According to Humboldt University law professor Dieter Grimm, the constitutions and bills of rights previously enacted by successive German monarchs were intended to preserve the legitimacy and survival of their dynasties, and little more. As a result, they created positive rather than negative rights that subsequently failed to endure the political whims of national parliaments and to secure consent from short-term-minded monarchs and unelected bureaucracies.” Id., at note 17, at 4.
By comparison,
“One purpose of the American Revolution, therefore, was to strengthen and protect the peoples fundamental rights. Consequently, fundamental rights could from the very beginning be negative rights that served primarily to protect individuals from the government . . . . In contrast . . . the inclusion of positive rights in German law can be traced to the fact that European constitutions, unlike the U.S. Constitution, did not establish an entirely new political entity because the nation-state existed before the constitutions emerged. This meant they never changed the tradition of the state, and part of this saved tradition, especially in Germany, was that the state always retained the role of being the representative of the higher aspirations of society…..