Posted on 09/24/2001 12:49:15 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
The American Constitutionalist
By: Aaron Armitage
Government Against the People
As the United States prepares retaliation aimed at Osama bin Laden's network of terrorists and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan there is a temptation, already succumbed to rhetorically by some people, to treat the Afghan people or all Middle Easterners as the enemy in a total war. George Bush, in his address to Congress, has rejected this, and he was right to do so. Acting on that impulse is exactly what bin Laden wants, because there's no other way his dream of uniting Islam against the West can happen. Beyond that, such a total war is simply misdirected. The Taliban are, in many ways, an alien force within Afghan society. The Taliban gained power in large part because of the sponsorship of Pakistan, although Pakistan is currently siding with the United States (no doubt under compulsion). Many of the supporters of the Taliban, including bin Laden himself, are from foreign countries, especially Saudi Arabia, and these are some of their best troops in the war against the Northern Alliance. Were they not disarmed, starving, and otherwise oppressed many Afghans would resist. Some, especially women, already are, but not in the open.
In a more important sense, though, all tyranny is a force alien to the organic society it rules over, because tyranny is government against the people (or some of the people), as opposed to government for the people. A non-tyrannical government exists to protect the persons and property of everyone inside its jurisdiction by punishing domestic criminals and defeating foreign attackers, and as such is an ally and supporter of the people. To the extent that a government exists for any other purpose, especially a purpose which aims to force human nature to fit an artificial ideal, it must treat the people as an enemy to be subdued.
In order to make Afghans fit their concept of what a Muslim should be, the Taliban has outlawed music, kite flying, shaving, pictures, smoking, television, access to the Internet, leather jackets, chess, and even brown paper bags. The restrictions on women are, as I'm sure most people know, even harsher. Women aren't allowed out of their houses unless they're wearing a burqa, which includes cloth in front of their eyes that's difficult to see through. Incidents of female pedestrians being hit by cars have greatly increased, even though the vast majority of the people are too poor to have cars. Women are prohibited from working, and aren't allowed to receive an education. Some particularly brave women have set up secret girl's schools. The Taliban are an extreme example, in competition with North Korea for the "honor" of being the most oppressive dictatorship on Earth. Even these governments, though, maintain police and military, and thus provide at least some sort of protection for the rights of the people even while devoting most of their efforts to violating those rights.
There lies the ambiguity of the real world. The masters of the wretches of the world protect them, if only the way a farmer would protect the livestock he intends to sell to a meat processing plant. Closer to home, even governments founded to be for the people have their original principles compromised and admix tyranny with otherwise wholesome government.
America is not exempt. The prohibition of drugs, for example, cannot be enforced by means fit for a free people, and rather than ending it the government resorts to means unfit for a free people. That the majority of the people currently support the war on drugs does nothing to make the means of enforcing it, which still don't work, any less like the measures of an occupying army. Our government has declined from its original position under the Constitution, but our old liberty can be restored or even improved upon, if enough people have the will to do so.
The United States is nevertheless one of the freest countries in the world, and we should keep it that way by not allowing opportunistic politicians to rob us of our patrimony using the conflict we're now in as an excuse. The parts of our government that are most hostile to the people are the ones furthest away from them, the agencies nominally answering to the president. The most tyrannical regimes, the communists of North Korea and the Taliban of Afghanistan, got that way by being as separate from and hostile to the people as they could. We should keep that in mind during upcoming events. It is neither in our interests nor is it moral to gratuitously attack Afghan civilians.
As you already know (but probably won't admit) states can constitutionally regulate public use & sale of alcohol, etc.
The 14th amendment forbids the states from infringing upon life, liberty, or property, without due process. Prohibitory law violates due process. -- So you & your 'majority' cannot trump the constitution.
It is very clear that possession of property is protected as an unalienable right.. -- All property.. Unless it it being used in a criminal manner.. Which is to be decided by a jury, not by a fiat prohibitory law made by a majority of 'legislators'..
Article. XIV.
[Proposed 1866; Ratified Under Duress 1868]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
---------------------------------
The possession of private property, used in a non criminal manner, is an unalienable right, enumerated by the 14th amendment.. Plain as the 2nd, to me..
It is not necessary to determine what rights exist in order to determine what power was granted to the federal government in our Constitution. It is not unreasonable, IMO, to take the position that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" covers every activity which the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to forbid.
The purpose of the Constitution was to grant to the federal government authority over the states and their citizens which the representatives of 13 states would unanimously accept -- the lowest common denominator of willingness to grant power to outside authority. That's what the ratifiers intended that it be, and understood that it was.
By the states, OF COURSE NOT! Anything else would be QUITE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I don't know about you, but I would pay ALOT less money for a house with known HARD drug users as neighbors.
Not when the possesion of the substance or item prohibited violates others' rights. How else could you say that CP is illegal to own?
I don't think Bush has spoken of the Afghani people as our enemy, as opposed to the Taliban, but your distinction between tyrannical rulers and oppressed subjects won't work. For one thing, according to Bernard Lewis (Islam and the West), Moslems put less stock in national than in religious identity. That means that Afghanis don't necessarily see Saudis and other Taliban as imperialists; Muslims feel closer to foreign Muslims, than they do to fellow citizens of different faiths. Indeed, Lewis insists that Muslims do not share Westerners' notion of national citizenship. They all dwell together "in the House of Islam."
And Islam is an authoritarian religion, which still sanctions slavery. So you don't customarily find Muslims who feel like, "My God, if only we could throw off the yoke of this tyranny!" Their thinking is more like, "My God! How can we be rid of this awful freedom and yoked to some good, old-fashioned tyranny! Give me chains, or give me death!"
Finally, even though many of our Muslim enemies have taken billions in aid money from us, that has not stopped them from praying to Allah for our imminent demise. In that regard, the Arab masses and Arab despots are of one mind: "Death to the Great Satan!"
Not when the possesion of the substance or item prohibited violates others' rights. How else could you say that CP is illegal to own?
You answered you own question. CP is evidence of a violation of a childs rights.
How are semi-auto 'assault' style rifles, prohibited in CA, violating others rights? Your gun banning majority says, exactly as you, that the state can ban for 'potential' harm they may do, just like drugs.
You never answered #160, on your 'imaginary harm', either. Is it safe to assume you can't?
Thanks for the flag.
A declaration of war would sweep away the effect of unconstitutional legislation and unconstitutional EOs which hamper the CiC in doing his job. It would also make anyone who commits treason subject to hanging. There are many in Congress who will oppose a declaration of war for just that reason alone.
What happens when those safeguards are weakened and you have a population willing to give up at least a few of those rights (they think temporarily but we all know better).
That should be for the SCOTUS to decide since the 2nd DIRECTLY addresses that issue. However with hard drugs, the potential of physical harm, such as the person entering a psychotic mentality and running over to your house to slit your throat for the fun of it (I didn't just make that up either, a distant relative was a victim of such a crime by a person on PCP), or be it that they choose to break into your house to steal money to get more of their drug.
Point is, they are not capable of controlling their actions. This state of being is unsafe for surrounding citizens.
----------------------------------------
Thank you. Your theories for controlling the actions of citizens before they commit crimes are proof positive. --- You are not a constitutional conservative of ANY type.
Then you recognize no principles of justice binding laws, by which the laws are to be judged.
So you're going to go with property values rather than "social costs" or misspent tax money.
Contrary to what many people think, including many libertarians, the most important thing about property is not that you can sell it but that you can use it. It's that confusion that creates violations of property in the name of property, such as zoning ordinances.
In my opinion the first reason for existence of any government is to provide a means for the governing class to live without physical or intellectual labor of a demanding sort off of the labor of the governed. The protective functions are secondary, to maintain and facilitate the increase of the level of productivity of the subjects.
Many who enter public service are howerv just as much victims of "false consciousness" as the subjects, that is, they believe their own propaganda concerning the purpose of government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.