Is the U.S. a tyranny by Thomas Jefferson's definition?

I've been wondering about this question for some time now. We all claim to cherish our liberty, but we seem very content to sacrifice it in exchange for security, safety, etc. This is true whether it be personal security and safety or monetary security and safety. Therefore, I thought I'd do an experiment and look at the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and compare them to modern day America. In quotes will be Jefferson's statement in the declaration. The words underneath will be my response. Here goes.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

The king refused to agree to laws that the colonists felt were necessary. This is the essence of self rule. It has been argued that the colonists would never have considered a rebellion if the king would have allowed them self government or Parliamentary representation. All of these he denied them. Therefore, upon gaining their freedom, they set up a system of government with checks and balances built into it to prevent the concentration of power in any one part of the government as well as to ensure a federal system rather than a national one to prevent the concentration of power in the central government. I'd say whether or not the central government is passing or preventing laws that are necessary is a matter of opinion, so on that there is room for argument, but can anyone argue that power is not slowly being concentrated in Washington at the expense of the states as well as in the executive at the expense of the legislative?

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

So, the king refused self rule of the very governors he appointed and required they seek his permission. Then he ignored them. Our central government is certainly guilty of passing laws regardless of the wishes of the several states and then requiring them to follow those laws. Jefferson and Madison wrote the Virginia Kentucky resolutions which stated that the states had the right and responsibility to nullify overreaches in power of the central government. This "right" has certainly not existed or been allowed in this country for 150 years. In essence, the central government denies the powers of the individual states on a regular basis. These could be seen as similar...although I'll admit it required a lot of thought on my part.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

Refused to pass laws unless the people relinquish their right of representation? Interesting statement. Jefferson says this is the act of a tyrant. Well, several Presidents, particularly the last two, have used unconstitutional methods (signing statements, executive privilege, redefinition of existing statutes to create regulations and more) to enact their policies and agendas that have been directly contrary to the will of Congress and by definition therefore, the will of the people. In several instances acting in a fashion contrary to direct votes of Congress and contrary to a majority of citizens. So, we are now on our second tyrant in a row, at least, if we are to base this on this one statement alone. However, Jefferson wouldn't allow that. He specifically referred to a long line of usurpations, so we will continue.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

This refers to making the legislative bodies meet in odd places and times and to have to travel to much during the colonial period. This...our government does NOT do. Unless you want to talk about Presidents meeting with the leaders of the legislative bodies at odd hours of the night, which does happen. I don't really think this one applies though.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

So far, we have not had a dissolution of Congress. However, there have been several attempts at getting around Congress. FDR used packing the court to get around them...Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus, Adams passed the Alien and Sedition acts, Bush exercised "executive privilege", Clinton simply lied outright and Obama has decided to do things anyway because we can't afford to wait for Congress. This type of disregard for the legislature surely falls under the idea of the second part of this statement since ignoring Congress or maneuvering around Congress or doing things contrary to the will of Congress is certainly an invasion on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

Well, if we haven't dissolved the Congress yet, then no President has prevented it from being reconstituted. Therefore, this one doesn't apply until such a time as the Congress is dissolved for any reason.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

One of the reason the framers of the Constitution placed a uniform immigration law as a power of the central government was to prevent any state from exercising this kind of power over other states or countries. Freedom of movement was valued by the colonists as was the ability to increase in number through immigration. They were complaining that the king would not allow immigration but also that he refused to pass laws that would encourage migration, particularly by discouraging the purchasing of land or making the process too,onerous. Security measures taken, particularly post 9/11, have certainly limited our freedom of movement, not to mention our ability to travel. Therefore, our freedom of movement has been significantly decreased ostensibly in the name of security. TSA is a particularly egregious example of this domestically. However, killing American citizens abroad just because we think they are dangerous is certainly the act of a tyrant. After all, being killed by a military bomb dropped by a drone in a foreign country certainly denies them their constitutional right to a trial by jury.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He would not allow the colonies to make their own laws, as stated earlier, but here Jefferson is saying that he also would not allow them to set up their own courts. The colonists didn't believe that imperial courts or courts in England had their best interests at heart but instead were beholden to the king and Britain. Therefore, can we look at our system and see a similarity? Well, this brings us back to the idea of state nullification. If the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter or constitutionality, then the whim of 9 people is the only thing that stands between us and despotism. That certainly qualifies as power concentrated in a few. In addition, does the Supreme Court have the best interests of the individuals, states or local jurisdictions at heart or do they have the interests of the central government at heart. Research has shown that the Supreme Court invariably sides with the central government over the states or local jurisdictions. Jefferson would certainly argue that this isn't how it is supposed to work. If the central government has no check on the expansion of its power, then it certainly is in danger of concentrating that power to the point of tyranny.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

The king basically said judges couldn't serve or get paid if they decided against him. This is why we set up an independent judiciary that required appointment by the President and confirmation by the legislature. This was meant to ensure that the judges could not be swayed in the way described here. However, in recent years, Presidents of both parties haven't looked at their judicial appointments in terms of who is qualified and capable of being a judge and who will defend the constitution, but instead make their appointments based on which judges they think will support their policies. This has resulted in political maneuvering by the Congress in all sorts of ways to prevent the appointment of what one side or the other considers to be a "radical" appointment. In fact, Ted Kennedy once held up a nomination in committee long enough to ensure that a particular court had already heard and decided a case because he knew that particular nominee would vote contrary to his preferred outcome. This type of maneuvering is all about power and results in nothing more than the concentration of power. It is certainly heading down the tyranical road.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

So, I would argue that the various government agencies and all their bureaucracies fall into this category, but depending on the agency, there would be disagreement and room for discussion. Therefore, I'll leave them out of this and just refer to a relatively new phenomenon. "Czar" positions are pretty recent. In fact, based on my recollection, the first czar was appointed under Reagan. This "executive branch" position to "advise" the President has grown exponentially, with each successive President having more and more of these unconfirmed advisers. This has culminated in the obscene number of czar in the Obama administration. In fact, Obama even ignored the will of Congress regarding these positions. Congress included in one of their funding bills a section that prohibited the funding of salaries for these positions because they felt this had really gotten out of control. This was being driven by a lot of opposition to these positions from the general populace. However, when Obama signed the bill into law, he used the Bush tactic of a signing statement, and signed the bill into law while stating that he didn't consider that section to apply to the President who would exercise his own prerogative regarding it. This is astounding. There has never been a constitutional amendment giving a President line item veto power. Therefore, he can't just sign a bill and state that a section doesn't apply. Bush was wrong in this and so is Obama. The proliferation of czar positions and the complete disregard for the will of the people regarding these positions means we do have a tyranny based on this statement.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

The United States did not keep a standing army of any size until after World War II. However, this standing army has always been prohibited from acting within the borders of the U.S. This was specifically designed because of how King George behaved towards the colonists. In fact, not only does the constitution prohibit the use of private property, but Congress even passed the posse comitatus act that prohibited the use of the military within U.S. borders. As of the latest military spending bill, the posse comitatus act has basically been done away with. The Congress has now stated the President can use the military within our borders for certain purposes. This flies directly in the face of the founders intentions as well as over 200 years of long standing tradition. The fact that Congress would even consider giving this power to the President suggests we've come truly far afield of the idea of not using the military on U.S. soil. Of course, our current standing army is with the consent of our legislature, as is this "new" Presidential power. But we are moving closer and closer to a very dangerous outcome if we continue on the path we are on.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He wanted to make the military a superior law enforcer in the colonies. Isn't that specifically what the Congress is implying through their latest law that allows the President to use the military within our borders?

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

When we, as a nation, chose to remove the vote of the states and make the Senate electable by the people, we diminished the federal system set up designed to allow the states to check the power of the federal government by giving ascent to treaties through the Senate. The states no longer have that ability. Sure, the Senate still must approve treaties, but they aren't doing it with the interests of the states or the people in mind, but rather the interests of the central government. Therefore, we have opened up our nation and its sovereignty to abuses from foreign powers. The constitution can't protect us from these abuses because it specifically supports Senate approved treaties. Therefore, a lot of treaties have stipulations in them that are anathema to our own constitution, but we are forced to follow them anyway. This is the very essence of what Jefferson was talking about here. We are voluntarily giving up our sovereignty and usually we the people don't even realize it has happened until much later...when it is seemingly too late.

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

This hasn't happened yet, but I refer you to the above legislation and the power it gives to the President.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

The king protected his officials and the British military from punishment of illegal acts. Hmm...let's see...Bush started to torture our enemies and Obama has continued the practice. Bush started unwarranted wiretapping of U.S. citizens and Obama has continued the practice. These acts are protected by law...so we are certainly protecting those who seek to violate our rights. Tyranny.

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

Hmm...we've insituted onerous trade tariffs and barriers in the past, but this is a power given the central government. However, the President can't act unilaterally in this regard. We have a recent example of how the President ignored the will of Congress regarding trade with TARP. This bill was passed to prop up banks that were in trouble. Whether the banks wanted money or not. However, once the bill was passed, the President simply ignored the will of Congress and used the money for anything he wanted, including bailing out car companies. This power was not given to the President in the legislation, yet he did it anyway. Both Bush and Obama behaved in this fashion with TARP and again with the "stimulus package". Tyranny.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

Well, our system of government says that any tax passed by Congress is by definition with our consent. However, how about taxes (such as the new health care bill "fee") that are passed with political maneuvering never before used on legialation other than spending bills? Well, supposedly it is still passed by Congress, so...I suppose it doesn't count.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

Well, we are killing U.S. citizens abroad for consorting with terrorists, so I'd say we are now guilty of this one. If you hang out with the wrong folk and you are overseas, then we can kill you? Sorry, NO!

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

Any U.S. citizens held at Guantanamo or in other places around the world who were fighting with Al Qaeda? Yep, I remember that happening too. Huh!

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

Isn't this type of abuse what we've now moved into with the whole doctrine of preemption fostered by the Bush administration? I mean, we are overthrowing governments now, establishing new governments and introducing our imposed system on them. While this may not be an abuse against our own citizens, it is exactly what Jefferson is talking about here. Is it not?

For taking away our Charters, our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

This is the essence of federalism. Our founders believed that the central government should not have all the power and so they reserved most of the power for the states and the people. This is clearly stated in the 10th amendment of the constitution. Many people argue in favor of smaller government and states rights while others argue against both. However, strong and sovereign states was entirely the point. Can anyone argue that the states have any real power against abuses by the central government? If so, I'd love to hear it. So, I'll chalk this one up to tyranny.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

So far, I don't know of an instance since the Civil War where a state legislature has been suspended. However, during reconstruction, the central government imposed all sorts of restrictions on the states. This was the beginning of the end for real state power. This process was continued using the power of the Judiciary in the 20th century, sometimes for good, but a good outcome doesn't justify an act if it diminishes the power of the states, ignores the constitution and increases the power of the federal government.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

Well, this hasn't happened yet, so I guess we are safe, eh? Oh wait, our current President seems to think that his opposition isn't a group of equal partners, but instead a bunch of miscreants to be swept aside. He said as much when he said that those who created the mess should just get out of the way and let him clean it up.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

If our central government continues the reckless spending they've been doing, then the plundering of our seas, the ravaging of our coasts and the burning of our houses will be the least of our worries. In fact, there are some good arguments that government rules, acts and regulations played a direct role in creating the dot com bubble of the nineties which led to the housing bubble of the first decade which led to the economic crash. Now we think we can spend our way out of trouble? The fact that this tactic has never worked in all of history notwithstanding. Can anyone else remember the Weimar Republic? Oh yeah, no, not really, because we don't really teach good history anymore, but they tried to print money and spend their way out of it too and that didn't lead to anything good.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Well, so far this hasn't happened, so chalk one up to our central government for not doing this.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

The practice of impressment was a heinous one by the British crown. Fortunately, we aren't doing this. As far as I know. However, perhaps we are over in Iraq or Afghanistan for all I know.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Well, the two parties are very adept at pointing fingers at each other. However, this current President pretty much engages in class warfare tactics whenever he gets the chance. It is probably a carry over from his days as a community organizer, which in Chicago equates to what...really? My Chicago friends say a community organizer in Chicago is the same as a union boss or activist in other cities. That would explain his constant campaigning. At any rate, our President isn't the first one to pit the sides against each other and the two parties seem to like it that way. Recently, we've seen Tea Party activists and Occupy Wall Street activists and what do the politicians do about this? They villify each movement as much as possible with the intent of either turning the public against them or using them to their own personal and political advantage. If this doesn't come close to inciting domestic insurrections, I'm not sure what more we need to do short of actually shooting guns.

So, there you have it. The entire list of abuses and usurpations carried out against the colonies by King George and listed by Jefferson in the Declaration for posterity. The fact that we don't really teach good civics anymore may be the reason why nobody seems to notice these obvious parallels, or maybe people just don't care anymore because they've grown accustomed to the idea that the government is supposed to take care of them. Either way, we now have a centralized, powerful government that is clearly in danger of becoming the very thing our founders fought against. Not convinced? Comment and tell me why.