Back to Quack Off
Federalist Papers do not grant warrant-less searches or
carte blanche wiretapping to President
(Aug 18, 2006)
Washington, DC – 75% of
the time we agree with the editors of The Wall Street Journal (WSJ).
25% of our disagreement with the WSJ, however, includes their assertion that
the basis for the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the Federalist
Papers, written anonymously by Publius who turned out to be Alexander
Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison for reasons too long to go into here),
should only be interpreted as the equivalent of King George III searching
for and arresting political opponents using hoked-up or secret warrants.
Further, claims the WSJ, since neither Bill O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes at
FOX News have been arrested or had their cookie jars raided by President
Bush, then the ends (beating back the terrorists) justify the means (the
warrant-less searches). Wow, hesto presto quantum leap # 1001, the
Federalist Papers underwriting the U.S. Constitution, claims the WSJ, says
it's therefore OK for the Executive Branch, President Bush, to search and
seize our lollipops and laptops without proper warrants.
But that's not true and the WSJ editors'
logic is flawed. How?
It's analogous to the answer given by a
6-year old child who is walking precariously on a 3-foot high wall
overlooking a 3,000 foot drop into The Grand Canyon when his parents say,
"Get down off that wall, Rodney, before you fall down." And Rodney
answers, "You guys are mean, I didn't fall into the canyon." The
important word that was left out is: YET.
And that's the problem with dumping liberty
for assumed security. Just because the government hasn't infringed
upon your rights YET does not make it a good law.
The first step towards future illegal action
is to redefine current philosophy. That's how we have historically
arrived at, for example, the current illegal actions of a central private
banking system and one individual, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve,
controlling and attempting to manage the fiat monetary supply and thus the
entire economy of the United States (which is the exact antithesis of a free
market). First, one destroys the concept of paper money as a receipt
for a commodity (such as gold) and then one implements our current
unconstitutional central banking system (a private cartel) with essentially
unlimited powers over the purse strings (and thus the people) of the U.S.
The WSJ is urging us to do the same thing vis a vis our private property
rights, including freedom of speech.
In regard to the WSJ's snickering at Judge
Talylor's ruling that warrant-less wire tapping is illegal and once again
the WSJ claiming that the ends (defeating those nasty terrorists) justify
the means (warrant-less wire tapping) and since nobody, claims the WSJ, has
been prevented from talking on their phones YET (again, a childish response
since by the time it does happen, it's too late) and that none of this
violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or its basis, the
Federalist Papers, may I remind the editors at the WSJ that the U.S.
Constitution is NOT A GRANTING DOCUMENT OF, but rather a PROHIBITING
DOCUMENT AGAINST INFRINGEMENTS UPON, a priori individual rights
obtained at birth.
The government can't dispense rights it
never had a priori to its creation by free people. It cannot
create new rights for itself out of the clear blue sky or by Executive Order
whether we are at war or not. The ends never justify the means
and I'm surprised the WSJ does not understand the difference between a
"granting" document and a "prohibiting" document.
The best way to defeat terrorism is to
espouse the philosophy of inherent individual freedom and its only natural
result, free market capitalism, and carry a Big Gun for legitimate self
defense. That includes pre-emptive self defense such as taking out
North Korea and Iran's nukes. We should not be reacting like cats on a
hot tin roof to every real and imagined terrorist activity by dumping our
individual freedom every time the "terrorists" hiccup in their Coca-Colas at
the airport. Otherwise, who's controlling whom?
We should dump the ridiculous TSA
bureaucracy and travel restrictions at the airport (except those freely
implemented by each private airline company such as air marshals, Kevlar
doors, profiling, etc.) and show the terrorists we are not going to be
intimidated; we will not give up our freedoms.
While the only true function of a limited
constitutional government is to protect the inalienable rights of its
citizens, that doesn't mean we all need to be locked up in one big
government prison, afraid of our own shadows. Life is short; better to
stand up to the terrorists and retain our individual rights as a free
roaring lion instead of a little chicken-shit mouse hiding under the bed. --
back to top...