Posted on 12/06/2001 12:04:43 PM PST by Jim Robinson
When the public is called to investigate and decide upon a question in which not only the present members of the community are deeply interested, but upon which the happiness and misery of generations yet unborn is in great measure suspended, the benevolent mind cannot help feeling itself peculiarly interested in the result.
In this situation, I trust the feeble efforts of an individual, to lead the minds of the people to a wise and prudent determination, cannot fail of being acceptable to the candid and dispassionate part of the community. Encouraged by this consideration, I have been induced to offer my thoughts upon the present important crisis of our public affairs.
Perhaps this country never saw so critical a period in their political concerns. We have felt the feebleness of the ties by which these United-States are held together, and the want of sufficient energy in our present confederation, to manage, in some instances, our general concerns. Various expedients have been proposed to remedy these evils, but none have succeeded. At length a Convention of the states has been assembled, they have formed a constitution which will now, probably, be submitted to the people to ratify or reject, who are the fountain of all power, to whom alone it of right belongs to make or unmake constitutions, or forms of government, at their pleasure. The most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this purpose. If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty — if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory.
Momentous then is the question you have to determine, and you are called upon by every motive which should influence a noble and virtuous mind, to examine it well, and to make up a wise judgment. It is insisted, indeed, that this constitution must be received, be it ever so imperfect. If it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they are experienced. But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.
With these few introductory remarks, I shall proceed to a consideration of this constitution:
The first question that presents itself on the subject is, whether a confederated government be the best for the United States or not? Or in other words, whether the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction of one executive and judicial; or whether they should continue thirteen confederated republics, under the direction and controul of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only?
This enquiry is important, because, although the government reported by the convention does not go to a perfect and entire consolidation, yet it approaches so near to it, that it must, if executed, certainly and infallibly terminate in it.
This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared "that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof." And by the 6th article, it is declared "that this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States. — The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties, with respect to every object to which it extends, as any other in the world. So far therefore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance — there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please. No state legislature, or any power in the state governments, have any more to do in carrying this into effect, than the authority of one state has to do with that of another. In the business therefore of laying and collecting taxes, the idea of confederation is totally lost, and that of one entire republic is embraced. It is proper here to remark, that the authority to lay and collect taxes is the most important of any power that can be granted; it connects with it almost all other powers, or at least will in process of time draw all other after it; it is the great mean of protection, security, and defence, in a good government, and the great engine of oppression and tyranny in a bad one. This cannot fail of being the case, if we consider the contracted limits which are set by this constitution, to the late [state?] governments, on this article of raising money. No state can emit paper money — lay any duties, or imposts, on imports, or exports, but by consent of the Congress; and then the net produce shall be for the benefit of the United States: the only mean therefore left, for any state to support its government and discharge its debts, is by direct taxation; and the United States have also power to lay and collect taxes, in any way they please. Every one who has thought on the subject, must be convinced that but small sums of money can be collected in any country, by direct taxe[s], when the foederal government begins to exercise the right of taxation in all its parts, the legislatures of the several states will find it impossible to raise monies to support their governments. Without money they cannot be supported, and they must dwindle away, and, as before observed, their powers absorbed in that of the general government.
It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty. — I shall not, however, dwell upon these, as a few observations upon the judicial power of this government, in addition to the preceding, will fully evince the truth of the position.
The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive; their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise between citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state, at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states.
How far the clause in the 8th section of the 1st article may operate to do away all idea of confederated states, and to effect an entire consolidation of the whole into one general government, it is impossible to say. The powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law. A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite [indefinite?], and may, for ought I know, be exercised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures. Suppose the legislature of a state should pass a law to raise money to support their government and pay the state debt, may the Congress repeal this law, because it may prevent the collection of a tax which they may think proper and necessary to lay, to provide for the general welfare of the United States? For all laws made, in pursuance of this constitution, are the supreme lay of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of the different states to the contrary notwithstanding. — By such a law, the government of a particular state might be overturned at one stroke, and thereby be deprived of every means of its support.
It is not meant, by stating this case, to insinuate that the constitution would warrant a law of this kind; or unnecessarily to alarm the fears of the people, by suggesting, that the federal legislature would be more likely to pass the limits assigned them by the constitution, than that of an individual state, further than they are less responsible to the people. But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all. It must be very evident then, that what this constitution wants of being a complete consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its exercise and operation.
Let us now proceed to enquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the thirteen United States should be reduced to one great republic, or not? It is here taken for granted, that all agree in this, that whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one; that it should be so framed as to secure the liberty of the citizens of America, and such an one as to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation of the people. The question then will be, whether a government thus constituted, and founded on such principles, is practicable, and can be exercised over the whole United States, reduced into one state?
If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on the science of government, we shall be constrained to conclude, that a free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these encreasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States. Among the many illustrious authorities which might be produced to this point, I shall content myself with quoting only two. The one is the baron de Montesquieu, spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]. "It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected." Of the same opinion is the marquis Beccarari.
History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country; and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free governments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.
Not only the opinion of the greatest men, and the experience of mankind, are against the idea of an extensive republic, but a variety of reasons may be drawn from the reason and nature of things, against it. In every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In despotic governments, the supreme authority being lodged in one, his will is law, and can be as easily expressed to a large extensive territory as to a small one. In a pure democracy the people are the sovereign, and their will is declared by themselves; for this purpose they must all come together to deliberate, and decide. This kind of government cannot be exercised, therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be confined to a single city, or at least limited to such bounds as that the people can conveniently assemble, be able to debate, understand the subject submitted to them, and declare their opinion concerning it.
In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the people do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen by them, who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of integrity to declare this mind.
In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few. If the people are to give their assent to the laws, by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen, must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few. Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people, without having it so numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in great measure to the inconveniency of a democratic government.
The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not.
In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.
The laws cannot be executed in a republic, of an extent equal to that of the United States, with promptitude.
The magistrates in every government must be supported in the execution of the laws, either by an armed force, maintained at the public expence for that purpose; or by the people turning out to aid the magistrate upon his command, in case of resistance.
In despotic governments, as well as in all the monarchies of Europe, standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty, and [are] abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic. In England, where they depend upon the parliament for their annual support, they have always been complained of as oppressive and unconstitutional, and are seldom employed in executing of the laws; never except on extraordinary occasions, and then under the direction of a civil magistrate.
A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people." Men who, upon the call of the magistrate, offer themselves to execute the laws, are influenced to do it either by affection to the government, or from fear; where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey: but, where this is not the case, the government must rest for its support upon the confidence and respect which the people have for their government and laws. The body of the people being attached, the government will always be sufficient to support and execute its laws, and to operate upon the fears of any faction which may be opposed to it, not only to prevent an opposition to the execution of the laws themselves, but also to compel the most of them to aid the magistrate; but the people will not be likely to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic so extensive as the United States, as necessary for these purposes. The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their conduct, and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers: the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them. The people in Georgia and New-Hampshire would not know one another's mind, and therefore could not act in concert to enable them to effect a general change of representatives. The different parts of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their representatives, nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass. Hence the government will be nerveless and inefficient, and no way will be left to render it otherwise, but by establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet — a government of all others the most to be dreaded.
In a republic of such vast extent as the United-States, the legislature cannot attend to the various concerns and wants of its different parts. It cannot be sufficiently numerous to be acquainted with the local condition and wants of the different districts, and if it could, it is impossible it should have sufficient time to attend to and provide for all the variety of cases of this nature, that would be continually arising.
In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the controul of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and oppressing them. The trust committed to the executive offices, in a country of the extent of the United-States, must be various and of magnitude. The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences, the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them, with a number of other powers, must be lodged and exercised in every state, in the hands of a few. When these are attended with great honor and emolument, as they always will be in large states, so as greatly to interest men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for ambitious and designing men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.
These are some of the reasons by which it appears, that a free republic cannot long subsist over a country of the great extent of these states. If then this new constitution is calculated to consolidate the thirteen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted.
Though I am of opinion, that it is a sufficient objection to this government, to reject it, that it creates the whole union into one government, under the form of a republic, yet if this objection was obviated, there are exceptions to it, which are so material and fundamental, that they ought to determine every man, who is a friend to the liberty and happiness of mankind, not to adopt it. I beg the candid and dispassionate attention of my countrymen while I state these objections — they are such as have obtruded themselves upon my mind upon a careful attention to the matter, and such as I sincerely believe are well founded. There are many objections, of small moment, of which I shall take no notice — perfection is not to be expected in any thing that is the production of man — and if I did not in my conscience believe that this scheme was defective in the fundamental principles — in the foundation upon which a free and equal government must rest — I would hold my peace.
Brutus.
Well, I HAVE the self-discipline, morality, and ratioinality required for self-government. Now, whether they conform to your ideals, I could care less.
You definitely stated you supported the Reno police state action and he disagreed with you---little confused are you?
Our ideals are the opposite!
The Elian Raid was Illegal
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
When Attorney General Janet Reno asked President Clinton to approve her plan to use U.S. marshals and Immigration and Naturalization Service tactical agents to break into the home of Lazaro Gonzales to seize his great-nephew Elian, they must have known that the plan was constitutionally flawed, unlawful, and repugnant to the language and spirit of the then three-day-old decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals that ordered Reno to keep Elian in the United States.
The attorney general, herself a former chief prosecutor for Miami, knows that the government cannot break into a private home and seize a human being without a warrant specifically authorizing the seizure, unless in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon. The president-- himself a former governor, state attorney general, and constitutional law professor--must have known likewise.
The first effort to conceal the truth was the attorney general's application for a search warrant. She did not present it to Judge Michael Moore, the federal district judge in Miami handling the case, but rather waited until after 7:00 p.m. on Good Friday, when a federal duty magistrate not familiar with the case and notoriously progovernment in his rulings was available to hear warrant applications.
The affidavit presented to the magistrate to induce him to sign the search warrant was signed by Special INS Agent Mary Rodriguez. Agent Rodriguez told the magistrate that Elian was being "concealed" at Lazaro's home, was "unlawfully restrained" there, and that INS Deputy Director of Investigations James Spearman had already directed the arrest of Elian because he was "an illegal alien."
LAZARO'S HOUSE INVADED
In response, the magistrate issued a search warrant. Thus, the power that the government invoked to invade Lazaro Gonzales' house was that conferred by Congress when contraband, or evidence of a crime, is being hidden. That, of course, was hardly the case with Elian, whose daily forays into Lazaro's front yard and Little Havana's streets were regularly shown on television. Moreover, the INS itself had designated Lazaro as Elian's guardian and had placed him in Lazaro's house.
The application for the warrant is as revealing by what it does not say as by what it does. Reno justified her agents' use of tear gas, guns, and violence by claiming a fear of weapons in Lazaro's house. On this, Rodriguez's affidavit is silent. Reno claimed she seized the child for his own best interests.
There is no allegation in Rodriguez's affidavit of mistreatment or likely harm to Elian by his Miami relatives. Moreover, the affidavit does not reveal that the government never interviewed the boy or had him examined by health-care professionals. Rodriguez also did not tell the magistrate that Aaron Podhurst, a well-respected Miami lawyer and a longtime personal friend of Reno's, was feverishly mediating negotiations between lawyers for the government, Elian's father, and Lazaro as the affidavit was being filed.
The application for the warrant is also troubling because, according to Richard Sharpstein, one of Miami's best-regarded criminal defense and immigration lawyers, the INS never arrests Cuban aliens without evidence of criminal activity on the part of the alien. This restraint on the part of the INS is arguably mandated by the Cuban Adjustment Act, which Congress enacted in 1966 to encourage Cubans to flee to the United States and which confers automatic eligibility for U.S. citizenship upon all Cuban nationals in the United States for one year.
It is now clear that the "search" warrant was just a pretext to get into Lazaro's house. No legitimate federal purpose was served by the raid. Elian was not in danger, he was cared for by blood relatives, he was voluntarily in their home, and a federal appeals court was soon to hear his appeal of Judge Moore's denial of his motion to order the INS to process his asylum application. A simple court order, sought on notice to Elian's lawyers, could have peacefully transferred custody. But Reno wanted a dramatic gesture.
PHOTO SHOWN AROUND THE WORLD
The next effort we know of to conceal the truth was the KGB-like behavior of the first agent to enter the Gonzalez home after the front door had been battered down. He kicked, maced, and assaulted an NBC television cameraman, whom the attorney general's intelligence had told her would be in the house, and destroyed his opportunity to film the raid. (Three hours later at a press briefing, Reno extolled "the beauties of television." ) But neither the president nor the attorney general knew that another photographer was hiding in a bedroom.
Albert Diaz positioned himself in time to take the snapshot shown around the world: an INS agent in a private home aiming the muzzle of an automatic weapon at a six-year-old boy. This photograph is a modern-day reminder of why the framers of the Constitution insisted upon a clause--the Fourth Amendment--to protect people in their homes from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The picture also is a slap in the face to a president and attorney general who permitted and later tried to justify the behavior it depicted.
Within hours of the abuse of Lazaro's and Elian's basic constitutional liberties, Clinton and Reno each told televised press gatherings that the agents' actions were in furtherance of the "rule of law" and the order of an appeals court. When I interviewed Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder on the Fox News Channel just a few hours after the raid, he, too, steadfastly insisted that the raid was carried out pursuant to an appeals court order and in furtherance of the "rule of law."
But the truth is that just one week before the raid, the Department of Justice had asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to order the turnover of Elian. The court declined to grant that request. Thus, we know that the president and his attorney general knew that they lacked authority for the raid without judicial sanction. Why else would they have asked for it?
The truth is that in the same decision in which the Court of Appeals denied Reno's application for the turnover of Elian it made several findings, all of which strongly militated against the violent seizure of the boy. The court found that when Elian was rescued from the sea, the INS named Lazaro, his great-uncle, as his guardian. Lazaro's interests, the court found, were identical to Elian's; they were not the interests of a foreign government.
The court further found that both Lazaro and Elian then made applications to the INS for political asylum for Elian. The court also interpreted the congressional statute governing the INS, and the INS' own regulations, as mandating that all applications for asylum be processed to completion. This, the court held, required the INS to conduct an interview of the applicant and his guardian and hold a hearing if anyone--such as a parent--objected to the asylum application. That same act of Congress and those same INS regulations, the court declared, had no limitations on the age of applicants and prohibited the INS from changing guardians for a child once an application had been filed.
AN AFFRONT TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
The truth is that the president's decision to conduct the early-morning raid--after the government's application for judicial authority to transfer custody of Elian away from his guardian had been denied and after the government had misled a federal magistrate into signing a search warrant--was an affront to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, substantially obstructed the congressional mandate that all applications for asylum be processed to completion, clearly violated the INS' own regulations, and publicly thumbed its political nose at the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The so-called rule of law cited repeatedly by the government is nothing more than Reno's subjective beliefs and her misreading of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
If one takes a step back from the guns and the anguish and tears on Holy Saturday morning, one sees this government's decision through even less credulous eyes. The Elian Gonzales case is a custody dispute. In Florida, as in all states, custody disputes are addressed by state family courts, not federal courts, and focus on one paramount issue: What are the best interests of the child--not the interests of a parent, not the interests of a president, and not the interests of a foreign government. Never in the recorded judicial history of the United States has a child's custody been changed by the force and violence of the federal government without a specific order of a court authorizing it.
In a poem about Abraham Lincoln's assassination, Herman Melville commented that Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson--the only other president to be impeached--failed to "[b]eware the people weeping when they bear the iron hand." The thousands weeping over the raid at the Gonzales home should weep for more than Elian. This president and his attorney general, after seven years, still do not perceive how they continue to weaken the fabric of our culture. In a free society the moral legitimacy of government depends in large measure on fidelity to the truth and fidelity to established law. But it is clearly too late to expect the Clinton administration to recognize this truism
I agree that is not a Constitutional, federal issue - it is a state issue. The feds should only have been involved to determine Elian's immigration status and to grant Juan a visa to come present his case before the courts. The INS had paroled Elian to his relative's care, and there are legal guidelines for reversing that process - guidelines that were violated by the Clinton Administration. The custody battle belonged in the Florida State Courts.
In the end, Clinton and Reno denied Elian and Juan their day in court - because Juan was never free to move about this country without an escort of Castro's goons, so we never knew his true desire, either. You can argue liberty versus parental rights question fairly, but it is clear that the raid was a violation of the law and the raid should be strongly condemned as a result.
Hint - it is not clear that Juan Miguel was NOT Elian's legal guardian at the time of the raid. The INS had revoked Elian's parole a couple of days before, but using a statute normally reserved for criminal matters, not civil/custody matters. And the relatives, having secured Elian's right to apply for asylum through the 11th Circuit ruling, were negotiating in good faith to turn Elian over - but the Clinton Administration was desperate to short-circuit the asylum process, hence the raid.
And why, if what the relatives were doing was so illegal, why was the only arrest warrant for Elian as an illegal alien (a ludicrous concept, since the 11th Circuit had just ordered Elian to stay in the country). The Miami relatives have NEVER been charged with a crime relating to the events around the raid - and the Clintonistas have never been shy about trying to hang charges on people - just ask the Travel Office folks about that.
And we all became a little wiser after that sad charade.
I am neither a storm trooper, nor a would-be dictator, nor a "Reno-lover". What I fail to see in your arguement is what, other than your own conviction that you are right and just, gives you the right to claim that you or an other person or agent other than Juan Miguel had the right to decide what is best for Elian. You probably dont realize it, but you are the one arguing for a police state, with you and those who think like you in the role of police.
122 posted on 12/14/01 1:34 PM Pacific by thusevertotyrants
Is this what you call..."common f'---ing sense"----denial/projection?
124 posted on 12/14/01 3:08 PM Pacific by thusevertotyrants
"Juan Miguel's demands"---Sudenland...sound very Hitlerenoesque to me---YOU!!
"and the law"---ruse of law via nazi party...gestapo/you!
Your words--thinking!
Good tyranny(yours) vs bad tyranny(mine)!
And you blame the family-victim---don't let the courts decide--FORCE/we want closure!
What kind of judge--scorekeeper--jury would you make?
Two sides to an issue a little too complicated for you?
Were you in on the fix---"decision-operations"?
Most philosophers think "free thinkers" are making it up all---explaining themselves...their lack of character---
hiding their dark side---window dressing!
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.