Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 12 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Un-elected boards shouldn’t govern
Published Monday, July 14, 2008
I do not commend The Natchez Democrat for its opinion piece of Friday, July 11 (“Compromise Isn’t Always the Answer”). I disagree with The Democrat on this issue. This is not an issue on which to seek compromises; the board of aldermen belongs in this process.
Allowing unelected boards and commissions such as the preservation and planning commissions to do an end run around civil liberties establishes a precedent that ultimately will have negative, far-reaching consequences for the historical and legal integrity of our community. Rather than undermining civil liberties in favor of those who want to unfairly make and enforce rules, the Board of Aldermen should instead strengthen those liberties by restricting their authority to advisory capacity.
William Blackstone, pre-eminent scholar of our legal tradition writes:
“In all tyrannical governments the supreme magistracy, or the right both of making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man or one and the same body of men; and wherever these two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty. The magistrate may enact tyrannical laws, and execute them in a tyrannical manner, since he is possessed, in quality of dispenser of justice, with all the power which he as legislator thinks proper to give himself. But, where the legislative and executive authority are in distinct hands, the former will take care not to entrust the latter with so large a power, as may tend to the subversion of its own independence, and therewith of the liberty of the subject.”
If a commission does not want to conform to the traditional form of our law, there is one other legal system it can petition the citizens to adopt.
Our historic legal tradition is another matter entirely. It demands careful and intelligent treatment when it comes to consideration of the three most basic absolute rights of persons; these being the right to personal security, the right to liberty, and the right to private property. It is at once an historic legal tradition and an increasingly spiritless, undiscriminating tradition of western community. The British Commonwealth increasingly, and the European Union already, have new legal traditions of a social democracy subordinate to a capitalistic upper class. These countries not only misunderstand the immense historical significance of preserving their legal traditions but also the socio-economic benefits to be derived from those old traditions.
After seeing the comments appended to the aforementioned opinion piece in the online forum, it is apparent that many in Natchez would happily dismantle all traditional checks and balances in favor of both economic development and old buildings. Following this line of reasoning we presumably would be falling all over ourselves to follow the Commonwealth and the EU in pursuance of the new system, called by Lenin the Third Way.
Until the historic district of Natchez becomes a separate body empowered by legislation to make and enforce laws within the district separation of powers should be preserved.
Neither Bob Dearing nor Kevin Butler, sponsors of so much local Third Way legislation would author such a bill.
Marty Ellerbe
Vidalia resident
Comments
Posted by Idefinitelymight (Tom Scarborough) on July 15, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You should fire your ghostwriter, Marty--he sucks! ;-)
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hehe... nah, he did okay. The two opposing points of view do bring up some real questions though Tom. It should be possible to preserve both the charm of Natchez and individual rights. If one expects the protection of law, then one should make an honest effort to understand the basis of it.
I enjoyed your letter, it was well written.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, come on Marty.
You're like the guy who thinks he can work on his car better from the roof of his house because he can see the whole jobsite and anyone who is coming down the road.
Me, I just get on the ground and fix the thing whether the screwdriver is the right size or not.
But nobody can accuse you of having a short attention span. He,he!
Posted by iconoclast (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem with Mr. Ellerbee's premise is that the zoning commission does not govern any more than the police department does. Like the police department, the zoning board is a branch of municipal government charged with enforcing laws and codes devised and put into law by the elected branches of government. This governmental structure exist from the federal level down to the local level. Did any of us vote for Mr. Bernanke to be chairman of the Federal Reserve or Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court? No, but these official were nominated by an elected President and confirmed into office by elected legislators. Both of these men enforce laws and regulations with jurisdiction over all citizens of this country. It is the same with the group that enforces our city's zoning codes. They do not govern.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's Ellerbe, not Ellerbee iconoclast. As the Democrat well knows.
While the Supreme Court is a constitutionally established branch of the government, the Federal Reserve is not. The Federal Reserve is a private bank.
What persons developed the preservation codes? Are some of these people now serving on the preservation commission or not?
Here is the problem iconoclast:
"In today's Natchez Democrat is a Public Notice that the City of Natchez is considering the adoption of a development code and new zoning map for the city.
The public will be allowed exactly 9 hours to look at this new proposal: from 10 am - 7 pm on Wednesday, March 21 in the City Council Chambers. The notice goes on to say this is not a public hearing and there will be no presentation, although staff will be available to answer questions."- March 15,2007 from the Natchez Blog
See any problems with that?
Posted by iconoclast (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The only problem I see is that the public should have more time to study the new zoning codes and map. However, these new codes will either be adopted or rejected by our elected officials, not some secret cabal with dark designs. I realize that the Supreme Court is a constitutionally established branch of government. My point is that the justices are not elected to their positions. The author of the letter to the editor takes the position that only elected officials should govern. I say the zoning and planning office is an enforcement agency like the police, not a governing agency.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
iconoclast, I knew someone would make the point you made, so I left something out.
The planning commission usurped the board of adjusters into itself. The board of adjusters was the equivalent of the judicial branch of local government concerning property use and rights. Now both enforcement and judiciary are contained in the same unelected body.
Appointed bodies are the definition of an aristocratic form of government. Natchez has a de facto aristocracy controlling property rights, my premise stands.
I am the author of the letter. Only elected officials should govern. The president's appointment of supreme court justices is one of the things that led Jefferson to describe our office of president as a bad edition of a polish king.
What is most likely is that elected officials, unless the people wake up and demand their attention to constitutional law, will simply rubber stamp whatever the planning commission, preservation commission, and the people behind them want.
Posted by iconoclast (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They do like to rubber stamp. However, being duly elected, they can chose not to adopt zoning codes. I was hoping for a whole new Board of Alderman. I apologize for misspelling your name, I only knew what the Democrat printed.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 16, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No problem about the misspelling iconoclast.
The issue I am trying to highlight is that, as all politics are local, every care should be taken that separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers be preserved. Some local actions are a definite move away from that.
The constitution guarantees a republican form of government for each state. The only alternatives to that form have all led to tyranny in the past. Even our form of government is not immune, but as long as the powers are separated transgressions can be repaired.
In the social democracy/ruling class model the people still get to vote for officials, but then the officials do as they please. So there is no real point in voting at all. And in that form of government unelected boards span the terms of elected officials so the real governing power remains undisturbed by the election process.
We've seen that in the US with agencies like the EPA, the NPS, all the security agencies...the list is very long.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on July 22, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...aka, Martyy Ellerbee...LOL, sorry couldn't resist...I get so many misspellings and mispronunciations of my name, I'm sure you can think of at least one right off, I've long since given up trying to correct.
Couple of things for the sake of conversation:
The Federal Reserve isn't a private bank, it is a quasi-public entity authorized by Congress and it's top three tiers are public entities, only the fourth or distribution tier is made up of private banks, but they are under heavy federal oversight.
The Board of Adjustment still exists as an appointed entity under the executive branch of the city government of Natchez...it was consolidated with the planning and zoning functions to form the Planning and Zoning Department. It has always been an EXECUTIVE function designed to resolve case disputes within the enforcement arm of city government BEFORE they can escalate to the TRUE judicial branch review.
You should give at least a footnote to Tip O'Neil for the "all politics are local" quote.
A full true democracy is often the equivalent of anarchy. The founding fathers knew this, which is why they established a REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE form of government.
Jefferson, your hero and mine too, wasn't pure as driven snow. In spite of all his protests regarding centralized federal power he felt quite at ease in using that federal power to consummate the Louisiana Purchase with Napoleon, against others who protested it was an abuse of executive authority and was according to Jefferson himself.
I'm not in favor of big bureaucracies, but the ONE good thing I can think of about them is that they do provide some continuity in an otherwise turbulent ever changing political sea created by our style of democracy.
The only tyranny I can think of happened in our only US banana republic in the 1920's, 30's and then again in the late 40's and 50's under the Long brothers...are those episodes the ones to which you refer?
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 23, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, the Fed is a private bank. The government owns no stock in it though the member banks do, with the New York branch, the controlling bank, owned 52% by Chase Manhattan and Citigroup. The Fed tells the government what to do, not the other way around. The only part of the system the government runs is the backing of the debt.
The five members of the Board of Adjustment still do exist, but as part of the planning department and when their terms expire they will not be replaced. Under the new codes no zoning or use variances are allowed so there is no need for a Board of Adjusters.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on July 28, 2008 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MARTY, WHO?
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)