Classical Values :: Constitutional principles, practical obstacles

January 02, 2010

Constitutional principles, practical obstacles

I'd like to get some sleep before I travel,
But if you got a warrant, I guess you're gonna come in.

-- (From the Grateful Dead's Truckin')

The recent government harassment of bloggers who published a TSA directive (which I discussed here) is worrisome for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the unprecedented nature of the federal government threatening and intimidating U.S. citizens because of the content of what they wrote. Not only is this is a direct violation of the First Amendment, but I think it's evidence of an emerging and very dangerous pattern of unconstitutional discrimination. It's bad enough for the government to direct its power against unapproved forms of speech, but by singling out bloggers for something that would be tolerated by the MSM, the government sends a clear message that some citizens have greater free speech rights than others. Thus, the New York Times and ABC News are free to publish allegedly "secret" government regulations, but ordinary citizens such as bloggers are not. How this is being allowed to happen I don't know. The First Amendment applies equally to everyone and makes no such distinctions. I am hoping that someone takes this all the way up to the Supreme Court, because right now that seems to be the only branch of government with a modicum of respect for the Constitution.

A more practical and pressing concern is what to do when the feds come knocking and want to get into your computer. While there's an emerging consensus along the lines of "COME BACK WITH A WARRANT!" my worry is that there might be more to the government's intimidation process than simply putting citizens to the trouble of having to insist on their rights. My concern is that in these situtations, the government agents may not be content to simply return with the proper piece of paper and limit themselves to only what they originally sought. These people have vast power, including the right to break down doors, shoot dogs, and ultimately use fatal power, and when people stand up to them, they have a tendency to retaliate. Just as the citizen who demands his right to a jury trial will end up paying dearly for asserting that right if he is convicted, I fear that a citizen who says "COME BACK WITH A WARRANT!" might very well discover that when they do come back, they'll stay longer, search harder, tear the house apart, and maybe even "discover" things that were "in plain sight." (Illegal wood, perhaps?)

So, it's easy to blithely tell people to stand up for their rights. But since we are all criminals now, are there practical consequences?

MORE: If we see what is happening in conjunction with President Obama's quiet grant of unprecedented (and unconstitutional) power to a foreign police agency along with other developments limiting freedom -- such as our right choose the health care we want or even to enjoy life free from "carbon footprint" regulations -- too many things are flying at us fast and furious. The question becomes, how much is too much?

I share Roger L. Simon's worries about the new year:

for the first time, maybe it was reading Hayek, that I worried we could conceivably be losing our democracy. Apocalyptic? Yes, sure. But still an ominous thought that will not go away. 2010 could indeed be a Year of Living Dangerously.

AND MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, news of more government intimidation, of mil bloggers from This Ain't Hell:

The Army CID showed more interest in tracking down the electronic route of an unclassified document than tracking down Hasan's connections with terrorism. One of us had all of his computers confiscated and the hard drive was copied by Army CID, just like the two bloggers in the TSA incident. He noticed that the screen names of the other two bloggers of TAH were on the search warrant - but neither was visited by CID.

So, apparently, this government is more interested in bullying bloggers to keep our traps shut than they are in keeping us safe from terrorists.

Hopefully they can't shut down the Internet.

posted by Eric on 01.02.10 at 10:39 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9203

Comments

We've come full circle back to when it was best for your gov't to not know your name.

Our only defense is anonymity.

Veeshir · January 2, 2010 10:53 AM

Contributing to this over-criminalization (or over-policization) is both zero-tolerance mentality and the dearth of religion in the public square.

As has been observed by others, look 60 years ago and a lot of workplace/school/univesity laws and policies weren't around because societial norms and pressure took care of things. A kid who hit or bullied another could be suspended immediately. A kid who fought back in self-defense would NOT be suspended. A man who harassed his female co-worker would find himself the object of some quietly expressed threats of what would happen to him if he didn't knock it off.

Good lord, if you hired someone and they were plain lousy you could fire 'em without having to write a novel-length "justification" with documentation!

With rabid secularization filling in for the role of church/synagogue, Government "rules" (rather than religious ethics) rule more and more of people's private behavior.

Darleen · January 2, 2010 11:35 AM

And you're just seeing this now? Ever hear of Ruby Ridge or Waco?

And Darleen, I respect your POV, but it is possible to be a functioning American and not believe in a god. God bless the rabid secularist.

dr kill · January 2, 2010 12:56 PM

But your University of Spoiled Children Trojans rank down there with Eric's Wolverines. In football.

dr kill · January 2, 2010 12:57 PM

it is possible to be a functioning American and not believe in a god

Certainly it is. But where rabid secularists are merely substituting their own brand of religion on the public square and doing it as if secularism is superior to any and all theism, and doing it by law, exactly how today's litigitous society "better" than the preceeding 230 years? (in the micro, not macro - I'm not referring to abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, or civil rights - and in the macro, two of those three were born of religious communities).

Most of the rabid secularists or atheists in the public square are of the Left or collectivist part of the political spectrum. They see religion (and family) as an obstacle to their ideology - making Government the most important and defining "partner" in an individual's life. This is entirely different from people who are individually agnostic/atheist ... they still see the value in religion and are not hostile to it - they just don't personally believe.

Darleen · January 2, 2010 01:07 PM

Thanks for that Darleen.

I do not see value in religion,

except as an alternate method of control. If you wish to be controlled by religion, by Paul of Tarsus or Ron of Hubbard, or the Golden Plates from New York State, (see what I did there?) that is just fine with me.

Don't legislate my morals, and I won't legislate yours.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

dr kill · January 2, 2010 08:06 PM

I don't need faith. God talks to me directly.

Or it could just be my mild schizophrenia.

M. Simon · January 3, 2010 08:29 AM

dr kill,

To what is religion an alternate? And what's this about "legislating morals?" Come doctor, you have left us with only half of your argument. Pray continue!

And Eric, wonderfully insightful post as usual. But when will you (and Roger Simon) realize that democracy is in no danger? This unfolding of events is entirely in keeping with democracy. The voters have consistently and Democratically determined to cede individual responsibility to faceless government Organizations in exchange for temporary (or imaginary) comforts. The People are aided in this nihilistic endeavor by their Representatives, who are happy to trade power and position in exchange for giving up Responsibility. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy prevails.

This is in fact exactly the outcome predicted by a great number of political philosophers, including some of the most influential founders of these United States. These United States were never, in fact, intended to be a Democracy. They were intended to be a Republic, in which the legal representatives of the republic were elected in a democratic fashion. Roger Simon is entirely wrong when he says "Our two-party system would normally be a consolation." A two-party system would "normally" be no such thing, it would be a tragedy and a travesty. The design of the basic law and government of the United States was specifically intended to Prevent factions (political parties). This was because the elected Representatives were supposed to be Representative of the Republic - not of opposing Factions. It is through Democracy that we have come to the state where what is good for the Party is considered before what is good for the Republic.

So don't you mean, not that we are in danger of losing "our" democracy, but that Democracy is in danger of destroying our Republic?

Dirtyrottenvarmint · January 3, 2010 05:35 PM

"I don't need faith. God talks to me directly.
Or it could just be my mild schizophrenia."

M.Simon, something tells me that, at your age, close enough to mine, by the way, you wouldn't be shattered to find out that where "better living through chemistry" failed to deliver, the alchemists are still hard at work on our behalf. ;)

Penny · January 3, 2010 07:29 PM