LaRouche economics - a legend unfolding in our time - the fight for civilization


From Canada with Love
Truth versus Guns

global peace - truth versus guns - kiss from Canada with love

Preventing Dictatorship

as in Presidential 'Signing Statements'

At the June 9, 2006 Washington webcast by the LaRouche Political Action Committee, Lyndon LaRouche was introduced by his national spokeswoman Debra Freeman who chaired the seminar. An excerpt from dialogs with Mr. LaRouche is presented below.

Listen to the: Webcast - transcript of the webcast


Debra Freeman: This is a question from the U.S. Senate, from the Democratic side of the aisle: "Mr. LaRouche, in January of 2001, you warned about the nature of this administration. Most Democrats on Capitol Hill are still reluctant to use the term Nazi, but an increasing number can now see that you are quite right. This Administration has systematically disregarded both the spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution, and while it's true that some of it occurred in the wake of 9/11, the fact is, that a greater measure of what has occurred, has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 or the so-called War on Terror. Most specifically, there are questions now that have been blown up around the separation of powers. This came up during the time of the nuclear option, but it is exploding on Capitol Hill this week.

"Two developments that we're looking at: One is the recent conflict that has been widely covered in the press, that I won't review here, between Vice President Cheney and Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Specter is infuriated over Cheney's direct intervention in the business of the Congress. The other is the keen attention of Democrats to the announcement that the American Bar Association is now investigating the legality of Presidential signing statements, and also the legality of this President's repeated decisions to simply ignore past legislation already signed by his Presidential predecessors.

"My question is this: Is it possible to effect positive policy initiatives as long as Bush/Cheney remain in office? We could pass the Economic Recovery Act, and Bush could sign it, and issue a Presidential signing statement, like he does with everything else, and still do absolutely nothing."

LaRouche: I think the estimate is that the President's popularity is about 10% of the population, if you're talking about affirmation of his policy trends, as opposed to something else. And his Vice President is probably down below 10%, or maybe even in negative numbers.

The problem is, simply, what you have is, you have something tantamount to dictatorship in process, on behalf of something which is itself a principle of dictatorship. And remember this—what all these lawyers we have in the United States, and most of them forget Constitutional law, and the origin of natural law and Constitutional law, is that—We have a fight; there was a German scholar, who is an international authority on law, who died some years ago, about a decade ago, a little over a decade ago. And he wrote a book published in 1952, after interruption of his studies by war, on the rise of the modern, sovereign nation-state. Now the point he refers to, which is not unique to him, but it's a point which was taken up by Dante Alighieri and others over the long history of modern civilization and medieval civilization. That from the time of ancient Greece under Solon of Athens, and the expositions by Plato and others; the idea of the existence of a natural body of law of the people of a republic—that is, in which the binding control over a government, the executive powers of government, other powers of government, have to be based on some principle of natural law. And the processes by which law is adopted, or legal action taken, have to be according to natural law.

Now the essence of natural law is, essentially, first of all it's the idea of not just the nation-state, it's the idea of humanity as a whole. In earlier times, as in ancient Babylon, and the Roman Empire, and the Byzantine Empire, in the ultramontane system under the crazy Spanish Inquisition and things like that, there was no regard for natural law. Natural law, of course, is reflected in the idea of agape in Plato in the Republic. It's the same thing as agape is reflected in the concept in I Corinthians 13 of Paul: the idea that the love of mankind as a whole is the guiding principle in understanding that mankind is in a sense an immortal being; that each life is part of a skein of immortality in which the development of the individual in society, and the contribution that individual makes to the future of society, and realization of aspirations of the past, is the nature of love of mankind.

So, one must never act against the idea that mankind is a special species. The ego, for example, in Friedrich Engels is this concept that man is nothing but a dingle-toed ape or something, right? This kind of thing. Mankind is sacred, because mankind is capable of making discoveries of universal law, being guided and acting on that basis, and changing the universe through those discoveries. No other living creature can do that, except the human individual person. And this is not some kind of game, like playing canasta together; this is done by the individual mind, with interaction among individual minds which stimulate this process. So the individual has an immortality located essentially in his or her contribution to these ideas, which have perpetual value for humanity and its mission as a whole. This is the principle of law.

Now, the question of how do we organize a republic? First of all, we say we reject the idea that some people do the thinking and other people take the orders. The idea that some people should not discover anything; they should just do as they're told, while a few people give the orders. The idea of a ruling caste, a ruling class, and a bunch of people who are treated as human cattle, as under the Babylonian Empire, or the Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire, or under the feudal system of the Crusades, or under the Habsburgs, or under Hitler; that this is not law.

And the signing-statement concept comes directly from the idea of the executive principle, which is an attempt to resurrect, from what's called the conservative tendency of law, to resurrect the idea of empire. It comes up at this time precisely—what does President Bush say? Regime change. You go to war to effect regime change. You don't like a government, you go to war to impose regime change. Who gave you the right to go to war to change the character of a regime? We don't have that right; no government has that right to do that to another, to other people. You can do certain things, but you can't go to war for the purpose of imposing regime change by force. It's immoral; it's imperialism; it's dictatorship!

Now, the history of our republic says that a guy who does that is impeachable for, simply for trying to do it. Yes, the President of the United States must have executive powers, but what are those executive powers? Executive powers are to fulfill the intent of the law, which can not be done by a parliament. Idiots think parliaments can govern competently; no parliament can govern properly. Our Congress is not a parliament; we're not a parliamentary system. We're an executive system; a Presidential system. The President is responsible to all the people for initiating the things that must be done for the sake of realizing the purpose of the republic. He's responsible. How does he make these decisions? He gets a lot of help; a lot of help, advice, and so forth. And if you don't want an idiot in there; you shouldn't have let George Bush in there. You shouldn't have run Al Gore for President; it was a big mistake. That's how you got George Bush, is by running Al Gore for President; that's your punishment.

We Need a Constitutional Revolution

So therefore, the responsibility of the individual, the personality of the President is great, but the President is accountable. He's accountable to the law-making bodies not to violate the Constitution, to respect the laws. If he doesn't like the law, veto it, and fight it out. Don't say, "I'll sign this thing into law, but I have this signing statement; I just changed the law." You are taking over the authority which was assigned to those branches of government. You are establishing a dictatorship. You are becoming a Napoleon Bonaparte, who got himself Emperor that way. You won't get an Emperor Bush, because they don't know which way to go.

So, this issue is key. There is no way, and there is no way we can tolerate—and how do you do that? You bring down the damned government. How do you do that? Our way; our Constitutional way. You mobilize to tell the guy to change his ways or get the hell out. How do you do that? You bring him down; you put him up against the wall, until the people decide they're going to support you, in which case you impeach him, and replace him. We never had to make a revolution in the United States in order to effect the purpose of our government. We're one of the few governments in the world, one of the few systems in the world that never had to do that. Our system provides in principle all of the means to remedy our evils among us. We don't need to get to extraordinary measures.

Now the key problem here with the signing statements is simple. Over the period since 1968, since the evil 1968er demonstrations, which said blue-collar workers are no damn good, and farmers are no damn good, and technology is no damn good. And having to wear clothes is no good. The 68ers, who were educated from the privileged layer of the population, which was sent to the better communities, so-called, targetted for Harvard and other places like that; intended to become the leaders of society in some capacity, professional or other. They were specially conditioned by a dirty operation called the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which is modeled on ancient Greek sophistry, which destroyed ancient Greece.

So this generation, which is born after 1945 to 1957, this generation in 1968 exploded, took its clothes off, threw away its morals, and said, "We hate working people. We're going to bring progress to an end. No more nuclear power, no more progress. We going back to Nature."

And therefore what happened, as a result of enforcing this, enforcing these policies, as under Carter, which were enforced not just by Carter, but by Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission: Under these policies, we had a breakdown of the U.S. society. We had built up, under Roosevelt and following, we had built up a system in which the rights of people, the social rights of people and the idea of protectionism, were built into the system. What was done under Nixon and under Carter, was—for over a decade—the destruction of precisely those things which are the so-called "Roosevelt reforms."

So, now suddenly, the lower 80% of the population has no rights; and they know it. And therefore, you have a split between the upper 20% and lower 80%, especially the upper 5% and the lower 80%. So, the lower 80% says, "Well, we vote for the party, but we don't have any say in the party." Look at the size of the meetings held by the local Democratic Party organizations. Who says what is decided, what is discussed? Nothing is happening. So therefore, you say, "Well, I'm a citizen, I have the right to vote. What the devil does that mean?" You don't have a right to influence the decision of what to choose as the issue to vote.

Like this case of the auto industry—you have over 300,000 people who were employed in the area of the auto industry and its auxiliaries, who are now—with their families, and with their communities—are about to be extinguished, and turned into virtual slaves, or cast-offs. Who had the right to oppose that decision? Or who should have had the right to oppose that decision? Where is vox populi? What you have is the people—vox populi is the DLC, which represents the big moneybags which are swindling and ripping off the United States and the world; they buy the politicians, and the politicians say, "That's our constituency, the DLC, and the people can go to hell. We'll pass sandwiches out on Sundays."

Now that's our problem here. The problem is, you need a revolution. You need a revolution by simply enforcing the intent of our Constitution. The way to enforce it is: "We are in danger; we are suffering; we are about to lose our country; we're about to lose our way of life. You can't take it away from us, and have us sit back and allow you to do that. We are going to just pull down any politician who continues this policy."

And if the American people decide that they're going to do that, or a large number of them, believe me, the change will occur. The problem is, that the lower 80% of the population has no confidence and belief and trust in the upper 20%; that's what the problem is. And they say, "There's nothing we can do about it."

How many people tell you, when you talk about these issues, "Yes, you're right, but there's nothing we can do about it"? And by saying there's nothing you can do about it, you excuse yourself from doing something, whereas if you were organized properly in a political organization, you do have something you can do about it. With the number of people in the auto industry, and the families and the people affected, we could pull down the whole structure of policy overnight. But the people aren't together; they're discouraged, and they don't have many leaders they can trust.

And people say, they'll say to me, directly or indirectly, "Yeah, you're right, but uh, we can't " they say, "We can't vote for you; we can't support you." And therefore with that statement—they're saying to me, in effect, "We can't support you"—they condemn themselves to Hell.

The way you deal with this problem is simply stop the process. This is our republic; the people created it. We fought for it, we maintained it. We fought for it under Roosevelt, we fought for it in World War II. We saved the world from Hell by fighting Hitler, and without our help it wouldn't have happened. We are the people; if we will get together, we will find that we have the power in our hands to deal with this problem.

About LaRouche - the American economist and statesman that has become a legend in our time in the fight to advance civilization, protect mankind, and create a new renaissance: 

" We are at a point in world history. 
At the present time, the international monetary financial system
of the world is in the process of disintegration. That does not mean the end of the world. It means that we either make certain changes, or this
planet will go in fact into a prolonged new dark age, comparable
to what happened to Europe during the middle to late part of the
14th century." (LaRouche, June 15, 2006)

About the series:  Truth versus Guns,
 presented by Rolf A. F. Witzsche

About Rolf A. F. Witzsche

Rolf A. F. Witzsche, is an independent researcher, publisher, and author of eleven novels. The novels are focused on exploring the Principle of Universal Love, the principle that is reflected to some degree in every bright period throughout history, with the added challenge for today to give our universal love an active expression with a type of 'Universal Kiss' for all mankind. 

Novels by Rolf Witzsche

free online with love by rolf witzsche.html


go to home page

go to Rolf Witzsche main home page