FFQF — Why the Separation of Powers…
It is believed that our society, therefore our culture as a Nation, has been classified as “hedonistic.” With all due respect to our readers, the classification comes from those agencies that predicated upon the definition of hedonism work with religious classifiers’ The Catholic Encyclopedia, as well as other dedicated agencies such as: The Classification Theories of Welfare, The US Library of Medicine – National Institute of Health, and selected readings from Epicurus to Aristotle.
The consensus of definition for hedonism is living and behaving in ways that mean you get as much pleasure out of life as possible, according to the belief that the most important thing in life is to enjoy yourself.
Then of course, we move to Ethical hedonism, which is the idea that all people have the right to do everything in their power to achieve the greatest amount of pleasure possible to them, assuming that their actions do not infringe on the equal rights of others.
And finally, at its simplest, Ethical hedonism is the claim that all and only pleasure has positive importance and all and only pain or displeasure has negative importance. At least from the simple forms of Ethical hedonism, it also follows that pleasure is good whenever it is had, even in matters that are themselves worthless or worse (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
What does any of this have to do with the Founding Fathers or their implementation of the doctrine of separation of powers? We feel that it is the given state of our Nation, primarily on behalf of the leadership or what is attended as leadership; furthermore, given the notion of “human nature” why then is there an overwhelming degree of how those politicians in Washington D.C. live, eat, and make income — not equal with the rest of the stiff’s living as we are?
In response to the Anti-Federalist demand for a more responsive government, Publius moves in the second half of The Federalist’s Papers to explain the separation of powers within the three branches of government. It is in this sense that Publius is teaching us a lesson about the true meaning of responsibility.
There are many that believe that Publius was in fact, John Jay, certainly a Founding Father as well as the first supreme court chief justice. Whilst writing in Federalist 52 about the virtue of the House of Representatives and its “immediate dependence on” and “intimate sympathy with the people,” fostered through the mechanism of frequent elections.
Good government is not defined by its responsiveness to popular demands, but it is responsible to the true, long-term interests of the people. In other words, it protects their natural rights. In his attempt to heal the American body politic, Publius offers a strong dose of political moderation. A government that is responsive to every popular whim suffers from the fatal weakness of wanting to enforce those whims.
Now then has the U.S. Supreme Court been so involved within a eight year presidency before now? Actually only six years have been used up; however, it is alleged perhaps by the world order that the USSC will be hearing and reviewing various litigation that has its origins within the Obama administration.
We mean issues such as same-sex marriage, the overwhelming disparity of sexual discrimination cases, the attack on the First Amendment, as well as the impropriety of executive orders for granting amnesty to over ten million individuals who trekked to this country and entered illegally? These potential, and like cases are already waiting in the queue to be heard.
Our concern is the US Constitution and how much more of a beating it can or is prepared to take? Every “whim” that some special interest group has cannot possibly turn into law by executive fiat. Our greater concern is the obvious — how many hedonistic values have already been conquered? Has the leadership in this Nation given up on the rule of law that we, out here, are demanded to use or face severe punishment? (Much more in store for separation of powers.)