Those Were The Days: When Jefferson and Madison Said No To Congress

Civil Liberties Watch ^ | August 3, 1004 | Elaine Cassel

[Founding Father]

Those Were The Days: When Jefferson and Madison Said No To Congress

While pondering the fate of Washington, D.C. where I frequently work and play, as the government reacts to three-year old intelligence by closing streets, putting cops in riot gear on subways, and preparing to close down most federal buildings, I ran across a riveting piece of history: Virginia (my home state's) response to the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, which provides for deportation of alients with unpopular beliefs and punishment of speech and press comments antithetical to the government. The essence of some of the Acts' provisions are echoed in today's Patriot and Homeland Security Acts.

Penned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Virginia residents, the Virginia resolution rejects federal policies that threatened the Bill of Rights. Madison and Jefferson must have been horrified at what had happened to the Bill of Rights in the seven years since their ratification as amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The threat to our way of life, to our Constitution, by our laws and terror alerts are totally real and potentially devastating today. As I look at the pictures in today's Washington Post and gasp in horror, I wonder what four more years of George Bush will bring. While I wonder, I remember fondly the good old days, two hundred plus years ago, when patriotism meant protecting a way of life.

Here is the text of the Resolution:

Virginia Resolution of 1798 RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, "the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States," and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

Agreed to by the Senate, December 24, 1798.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Founding Father]

Where are Jefferson and Madison when we need them?

[Sola Veritas]

This is an excellent quote by the two. However, I see in it more of an appeal to state's rights than anything else.

To equate the Patriot Act with the Alien and Sedition Act is some of the "sophistry" they speak of in this resolution.

The only problem I have with the Patriot Act is not it, but how some in law enforcement have misused it. It is my understanding that some law enforcement entities have used this act for domestic law enforcement in areas not related to terrorism or homeland security. In the same way RICO has been misapplied to stop anti-abortion groups, the Patriot Act is being misused to get around due process and proper search warrants in instances for which it was not intended.

This is the approach I take. I don't oppose the Patriot Act. I oppose those that missaply it - they are the danger not the law, which if used properly can help protect.

[dr_lew]

Did you see the History Channel show on the War of 1812, which they've played approximately a million times in the last week?

Madison pushed a declaration of war through Congress, and there were anti-war riots in the streets of Baltimore with "dozens killed and injured." The Federalists voted along party lines against it, and after the successful conclusion, they were toast.

[radicalamericannationalist]

The bigger problem was that Jefferson didn't say no to SCOTUS after Marbury v. Madison.

[diogenes ghost]

"They are the danger, not the law....". You have nailed the problem, but probably we differ on the answer to it. Any law that is written in a way that allows enforcement to be interpreted by the enforcers WILL be abused. To think otherwise is naive. Paved with good intentions, this road continues to lead us to a place we dare not go.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Far better to tie our own hands while fanatical Muslims seek to slaughter us.

[sourcery]

Far better to tie our own hands while fanatical Muslims seek to slaughter us.

The evil of others does not excuse or justify your own. Two wrongs do not make a right. You don't have any right to steam from Peter because Paul robbed you.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Who are we stealing from? This anti-Patriot act hysteria is just ridiculous. Any searches still require warrants.

[Gigantor]

Any law that is written in a way that allows enforcement to be interpreted by the enforcers WILL be abused. bump

[sourcery]

From the Wikipedia's entry on the Patriot Act:

This law provides for indefinite imprisonment without trial of non-U.S. citizens whom the Attorney General has determined to be a threat to national security. The government is not required to provide detainees with counsel, nor is it required to make any announcement or statement regarding the arrest. The law allows a wiretap to be issued against an individual instead of a specific telephone number. It permits law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant and search a residence without immediately informing the occupants, if the Attorney General has determined this to be an issue of national security. The act also allows intelligence gathering at religious events. With a few exceptions, provisions of the act are due to expire on December 31, 2005.

There has been strong criticism of the act on the grounds that parts of it violate the Constitution and endanger civil liberties. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) alleges that its search and detention provisions violate the Fourth Amendment. Some say that the act's secret warrants resemble the general warrants which were one reason the colonists fought the American Revolutionary War.

[radicalamericannationalist]

1. The phone tap rule is already in place for other crimes. In a world of cell phones, it makes sense to have the tap follow the person rather than a specific unit. And the tap must still be pursuant to the warrant.

2. Tell me if this makes sense. You search a terrorist's home. You find plans for an attack, however you do not know the identity of all cell members. Would it be really smart to then tell him, "Hey, Mr. Atta, we searched your place today. And boy, we found those plans for the subway stations. But if you could, would you still go meet with your confederates so we can arrest them too?"

And you still need a judge to approve the warrant. You just don;t have to blow the possible intelligence you gather by informing the suspect.

3. My heart bleeds for non-U.S. citizens. They have no inherent right to be here. If they fear that they will do something to make the government suspect them of terrorism, they could always just stay home.

4. And I'm not all that scared if the FBI pops in on my church. The worst they'd hear is some bad singing. But just as it is stupid to allow mosques in Iraq to become bases for our enemies, it is similarly foolish to allow shrines in America to become safe havens for our enemies.

5. Finally, if the ACLU doesn't like it, it has my vote. Again, this is black helicopter, tin foil hat nonsense.

[quietolong]

2nd Bump
And don't forget the war on drugs
JFnK & Hellarey will just love it if they get there hands on it.

And don't forget the war on drugs

What’s more freighting coming after you ?

1. Osam with a AK
Or
2. A bureaucrat with the (un) Patriot Act in hand

I pick #2

Just think because you decided to check out the wrong book. You to can have some
alphabet agency break you door down.

I bet those retired guys from the KGB are going “ Ah yes the good old days”

[Badray]

I don't remember the quote exactly or who said it but it was something to the effect that laws might be written by saints, but are enforced by sinners.

Meaning that no matter how well intentioned, you can count on them being abused.

I believe that the horribly named USA PATRIOT Act is loaded with opportunities for sinners.

[Publius6961]

the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, which provides for deportation of alients with unpopular beliefs and punishment of speech and press comments antithetical to the government. The essence of some of the Acts' provisions are echoed in today's Patriot and Homeland Security Acts.

This is almost certainly a non sequitur but I am having problems putting my finger on it.

I can however, with certainty, state that neither Jefferson nor Madison (didn't he run off without telling anyone during the war of 1812 and leave his wife to deal with the White House? but I digress...) would entertain that being in the country illegally for the express purpose of terrorizing the populace, or for the purposes of financing terrorism qualifies as freedom of speech or "press comments antithecal to the government. Certainly not the murder of almost 3000 of our fellow citizens.

This statement prevented me from reading the rest of the crap, since already it built upon a poisoned premise.

[Badray]

I know that you won't mind if your local fibbies stop by and search your home the next time you're out, based on an allegation by somebody who has a grudge against you. He just said some real nasty things about you and all them middle eastern men that you meet with almost every night.

You know, they'll just pop in and search your papers and computer's hard drive. No big deal.

Of course you won't mind, because you won't know that they were there and they don't have to tell you. If they happen to discover that you are innocent and they were taken in by a bad tip, do you think that they'll come tell you then? Or will they cover it up and pretend that it never happened?

Just think about Hillary enforcing this law against her political enemies? This abrogates the entire meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Do that matter to you ?

[Publius6961]

To equate the Patriot Act with the Alien and Sedition Act is some of the "sophistry" they speak of in this resolution.

The only problem I have with the Patriot Act is not it, but how some in law enforcement have misused it.

Exactly so, and Thank you. That was the nagging connection I could not clarify in my own mind. The sophistry is good. Very good.

First of all, the Alien and Sedition Acts were not merely ignored, they were repealed. As for the appropriateness of them, or the ethical justification or propriety, that is secondary and perhaps irrelevant.
More importantly, the fact that a law is subject to abuse can never be sole rational justification for challenging or even ignoring it, since the same can be argued for any law.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Do you understand the requirements to get a warrant? Your examples appear to be culled from particularly bad movies on the Lifetime Movie Network. An accusation from a single source without corroboration cannot be probable cause to obtain a warrant.

[Badray]

I'm so sorry. You're right. A cop has never entered without a warrant. The feds would certainly never kick in a door without a warrant and being 100% certain that they had the right address for a no knock drug raid. And Homeland Security will never ignore the Constitution and any prohibitions against illegal search and seizure. </sarcasm>

Go back to sleep. I'm sorry that I bothered you.

[radicalamericannationalist]

You;re right. Let's disband the police. Then we can hold out copies of the Constitution when thus are kicking in our door because they will always obey the law.

Your logic, or lack thereof is utterly astounding. In your fever dream of a world, there would be no laws as all are subject to abuse. "Can't say no murder. What if a cop would frame somebody?" "Can't say no rape. What if a cop made a mistake?" "Well, if we outlaw theft, what if a cop sees me with something he thinks was stolen and then talks to me about it? From there, they'll beat me with hoses. It's the first step to a police state."

I'm going to go talk to my two year old nephew now. At least he is capable of intelligent conversation.

[Badray]

Maybe your 2 y/o nephew would be an improvement. It's obvious that the conversation that you are having with yourself is pure nonsense.

I said none of the things that you presume.

The 4th Amendment is quite clear. It's also quite clear that sneak and peak warrants, no-knock raids, and the like violate the 4th Amendment. The government's job to prosecute someone is not supposed to be easy. The government should be jumping through the hoops, not it's free citizens.

Perhaps many of the 3000 lives lost on 9/11 could have been spared if government hadn't already exceeded it's authority by violating the 2nd Amendment. If citizens were not prohibited from carrying weapons for their own defense, maybe those planes would have never been hijacked. We don't know, but we do know that the government's plan didn't work. Government plans rarely do work as promised.

Are you in love with government that you accept the premise that they know best? Are you scared of dying and are relying on the government to keep you alive? Do you know that the government and the police have no legal obligation to protect you? Or are you just scared of living and want someone to make the tough decisions for you?