Remember how, immediately after the inauguration of Barak Obama, the phrase "elections have consequences" became the mantra of the American Left? When the president nominated radical left-wing jurists to the Supreme Court, liberals dismissed objections on the grounds that he was only following the will of the people - after all, Obama had won. And, like it or not, that view is correct - picking Supreme Court judges is indeed the prerogative of the President.

But what about the "will of the People" expressed in the 2010 election? Certainly any objective observer would agree that the message sent by the People was loud and clear - perhaps the most unmistakable message to be sent to a sitting president in modern history. And since lawmaking is the responsibility of the legislature, it should be agreed that, here, too "elections have consequences" - and the President could rightly be expected to respect the will of the People, right?

Don't hold your breath.

As author Jason Lewis explores in his excellent book "Power Divided is Power Checked" the separation of powers written into the Constitution was expressly designed to prevent the accumulation of too much power in the hands of any one branch of government. The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches each have their role - and limiting their power, not expanding it, is the primary thrust and purpose of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was, and is, all about putting checks on the power of government.

The same holds true for the States versus the Federal government - the entire reason for structuring the nation as a group of sovereign states, and not as a single Federal state, was to prevent the concentration of too much power in an overarching central government. Other than protecting obvious human rights, and ensuring free trade among the states, the Founders understood that the Federal government should simply stay out of the day-to-day policies of the individual states.

Would that it were so today.

In reality, the most minute aspects of every citizen's life are now increasingly under the control of the Feds. The Congress now tells us what sort of light bulbs we MUST purchase for use in our own homes. Ethanol mandates force us to burn corn to power our cars, not only reducing gas mileage, but driving up the cost of food. Now, tell me, did you, or any of your friends and family, ever take to the streets to lobby for Ethanol mandates? Of course not - corn producers did (from those overly-worshiped "family farms" to big agribusinesses).

Now, it would be bad enough if we merely had to deal with an ever more "Nanny State" Congress, but now we are seeing an increasing effort by the Left to essentially make law in spite of what Congress (or the states) want - through UNELECTED bureaucracies. The EPA is particularly guilty of usurping power that they have no business having. When it became increasingly clear that attempts to pass the bogus (and economy-killing) "Cap and Trade" scheme were doomed to failure, the EPA simply unilaterally declared that CO2 was a "pollutant" - making it something to be "controlled" by....why, the EPA of course.

One nitwit at the EPA even dared to propose a ban on lead bullets, which would have done nothing to "help the environment" but would have driven the cost of hunting ammunition through the roof. Luckily, as this brilliant suggestion occurred just weeks before the mid-term election, someone at the Whitehouse apparently realized what a firestorm it would have created, so the EPA quickly released a Gilda Radner-like "never mind" and withdrew the insane measure.

But the EPA is only the tip of the iceberg - we now have rumblings that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is considering measures aimed at American citizens, supposedly in order to "stem the tide of illegal weapons" trade between Mexico and the United States, and so deal with border violence at the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Now, beside the point that the South American drug cartels have enough money to buy everything from RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grenades) to ATTACK HELICOPTERS (and get free delivery besides), why is yet another unelected bureaucracy being given the authority to write law? The BATF, like every arm of state or Federal government with police powers, has the obligation to ENFORCE law - not create it.

As an astute reader pointed out, even the FCC, an organization that is ultimately supposed to protect the right of free speech, now seems poised to become disturbingly like "Big Brother" in Orwell's 1984, deciding what program content is "acceptable" for the masses, whether on radio, TV, or even the Internet.

Increasingly, organizations that have no accountability to the People are being used to fashion laws that affect every American. What next, the UN determining American domestic economic policy? Oh, wait, they are already attempting to do just that - calling for the imposition of "Cap and Trade" on the American people under the guise of a "treaty."

Then there are those pesky American gun owners...what to do about them....