Back to Quack Off

 Quack Off               

by Free Market Duck

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. -- FM Duck

       back to top...