Ye Know not What Ye Do

A government of our own is our natural right...If we omit it (formation of a Constitution) now, (one) may hereafter arise, who laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge...Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. ----- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

Thomas Paine wrote and published his classic pamphlet, Common Sense, early in 1776 Philadelphia as part of an effort by a small minority to persuade others in America to break away from England and form an independent government, a constitutional republic. At the time, America was merely another British colony, albeit the single most important in view of its vast natural resources. Five months later, 56 patriots set their signatures to the single most important document in our nation's past, the Declaration of Independence. The rest, as they say, is history.

Thomas Jefferson was later to advocate revolution at regular intervals - every fifteen years, in fact. It is not for nothing that we remember him as a true revolutionary. It has been 222 years and only one revolution has been attempted. It failed. We remember it as the Civil War.

The victors have rewritten history to depict the Civil War as having been over the abolition of slavery, when in fact it was about the same old thing: economics. Exploitation of the few by the many. The tyranny of the majority, to borrow Jefferson's words.

There have been rumors of attempted military coups in modern times, coincident with the simultaneous retirement or death of a great many military officers, most recently during Clinton's first term as President. However, aside from the South's attempt to break away a century and a half ago, there has been no serious overt attempt to overthrow or, even, radically overhaul the United States government.

The lack of revolution, many say, is the mark of how well our forefathers drafted this country's formative instruments. Tell it to the southerners who lost so much a century later. Tell it to William Cooper and other modern patriots who have lost so much in recent times. Tell it to the many veterans today who regularly question why they served and fought to preserve America, only to see it become what it is today.

There has been a revolution, of course, because the America of today would not be recognizable to the founding fathers. Indeed, it seems a weak imitation of itself as it was only 50 years ago, a time that I personally recall and can contrast with today. This revolution has taken place gradually, one elected official, bought and paid for, at a time...one overreaching statute at a time...one corrupting influence at a time.

Before my time, George Orwell wrote the screenplay for today. Even then, it was apparent where we were headed. Perpetual war become "peace." A Ministry of Truth charged with rewriting history by pushing reality down the memory hole. Destroying whole populations in order to "save" them. A citizenry too timid to speak its mind; propagandized and browbeaten into submission, but allowed two minutes daily of orchestrated hate. The Thought Police watching one's every move, their efficiency in stark contrast to the inefficiency of other government agencies. A Ministry of Plenty to oversee chronic shortages engendered by the neverending war's gaping maw.

We Americans crow about our Constitution and, particularly, the first ten amendments (the "Bill of Rights"). However, we pretend not to notice that those rights, every one of them, today has been neutralized or turned into action to be authorized in advance by the government. With authorization, of course, comes restriction and the potential of denial, the very antithesis of a right.

The conversion of rights to authorized acts might at first appear to be no big thing; that is, until the control inherent to authorization is actually exercised. Thus, for example, gun registration becomes licensing becomes regulation becomes restriction becomes confiscation. And there are always good reasons given, usually even believed by those giving them at the time, for the initial inroads taken. Then others always find good reasons to expand those inroads.

Today we see an acceleration of the process as the general populace appears to clamor for more security. We are told that the actions taken by Bush the Second are in response to a general outcry by Americans. I wonder.

We have seen airline travel become a nightmare without becoming safer and serve as the single largest factor in hastening adoption of a national ID card.

We have seen a flood of third-world immigrants, both legal and illegal, continue unabated, with their "benefits" expanded at a time when Americans are tightening their belts (witness Bush's call for food stamps for illegals).

We have seen elimination of any requirement for search warrants by the police; indeed, we have seen them authorized to conduct altogether secret searches and wiretapping.

We have seen adoption of "star chamber" proceedings; trials without public access and no right to a jury.

We have seen elimination of habeas corpus laws, which used to preclude prisoners being held without charges or formal accounting.

We have seen a President conducting war unilaterally, without a nod to Congress.

We have seen elimination of posse comitatus laws, so that now the military may be used against our own citizens.

We have seen Attorney General Ashcroft direct federal agencies to refuse to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests.

We have heard Attorney General Ashcroft characterize as treasonous any and all criticism of the actions of this administration.

These and many other things have we seen in just the past few months. Normally, it takes years to advance this sort of an agenda. Like a dude-ranch horse, catching sight of the barn on the return leg, our government seems bent upon quickly covering what little ground is left before America is fully socialized, controlled and locked up tight. It's as though they are afraid someone might notice and force a course change before they have completed the journey. Someone like Thomas Jefferson, perhaps.

Many think these recent changes are no great price to pay for increased security. Perhaps not, if only increased security were the result. But it isn't. Increased control is the result and that is far from being the same thing as security. They fail also to notice that these changes are placed atop those wrought by over 200 years of increasingly powerful and corrupt government. The sum total change is enormous.

We have seen a judiciary continuously defer to the executive branch and a legislature that has become irrelevant in its lust for individual self-aggrandizement.

The Declaration of Independence is but a bittersweet memory today. The Constitution and its amendments largely a dead letter, with only ceremonial significance. What we are today easily could have been the result of a revolution, given the marked change in government that has resulted. In fact, that is just what has taken place. It just took place so gradually that nobody really noticed or cared. It is only in the past few months that the pace has picked up so much that the transformation has become apparent.

And yet, people seem (if you believe the media's report of poll numbers) to support what is taking place. As Thomas Paine certainly would say, "Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do; ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny." Or, as enunciated by Pogo, Walt Kelly's creation: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

As I read the piece, I thought, rather than speak in general terms, it would be a good exercise to identify all the liberties denied since the Civil War with each new law. Perhaps there is already a book dealing with this revolution of which I am not aware.

There is an article by Gary Galles submitted to the de Mises Institute in celebration of Edmund Burke's birthday January 12--born 273 years ago. Following are some excerpts from the article about Burke and quotes from Burke in consideration of this discussion:

"He was also an intellectual ally of America's revolution, condemning the imposition of taxes without representation as "perfect uncompensated slavery," and warning that if required to choose between British sovereignty and freedom, American colonists 'will cast your sovereignty in your face. Nobody will be argued into slavery.'"

"It is better to cherish virtue and humanity, leaving much to free will . . . than to attempt to make men machines and instruments of political benevolence. The world as a whole will gain by a liberty without which virtue cannot exist."

"The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts."

"Arbitrary power . . . is a subversion of natural justice, a violation of the inherent rights of mankind."

"[Nothing is] more truly subversive of . . . human society than the position that any body of men have a right to make what laws they please."

"Those who have been once intoxicated with power . . . never can willingly abandon it. They may be distressed in the midst of all their power, but they will never look to anything but power for their relief."

"Property was not made by government, but government by and for it. The one is primary and self-existent; the other is secondary and derivative."

"The moment that government appears at market, the principles of the market will be subverted."

Congress did not declare a War, Usama bin Laden did.

Article I, Section 8 specifies that Congress declares war, not foreign aggressors.

Osama committed an act of war. He has no authority to declare war on our behalf. The Japanese Navy committed an act of war at Pearl Harbor. Then Congress declared war against Japan. That's how it works.

Call it what you want

OK, it's a 'police action'.

and use the spin to whatever political end you so desire, but don't call me a liar.

Oh, there's some spin around here. But it's not coming from me. And I'll call anyone who lies to me a liar.

BTW, in accordance to the War Powers Act, the actions taken by the President and Congress are completely constitutional.

Article I, Section 8 specifies that it is Congress, and Congress alone that has the power to declare war. The executive is to carry out this war. Any change to this must be done through constitutional amendment. Mere legislation is insufficient to redesignate the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. Congress has no power to delegate its authority to the executive. They must pass an amendment, then it must be ratified by the States. BTW, is this the same War Powers Act that 'conservatives' used to dislike?

Declaration of War
.... An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli ''and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .'' But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view.
Sixty years later, the Supreme Court sustained the blockade of the Southern ports instituted by Lincoln in April 1861 at a time when Congress was not in session. Congress had subsequently ratified Lincoln's action, so that it was unnecessary for the Court to consider the constitutional basis of the President's action in the absence of congressional authorization, but the Court nonetheless approved, five-to-four, the blockade order as an exercise of Presidential power alone, on the ground that a state of war was a fact. ''The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name given to it by him or them could change the fact.'' The minority challenged this doctrine on the ground that while the President could unquestionably adopt such measures as the laws permitted for the enforcement of order against insurgency, Congress alone could stamp an insurrection with the character of war and thereby authorize the legal consequences ensuing from a state of war.
The view of the majority was proclaimed by a unanimous Court a few years later when it became necessary to ascertain the exact dates on which the war began and ended. The Court, the Chief Justice said, must ''refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates; and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department, which may be, and, in fact, was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken. The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed, as marking the second."
These cases settled the issue whether a state of war could exist without formal declaration by Congress. When hostile action is taken against the Nation, or against its citizens or commerce, the appropriate response by order of the President may be resort to force. But the issue so much a source of controversy in the era of the Cold War and so divisive politically in the context of United States involvement in the Vietnamese War has been whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration. The Supreme Court studiously refused to consider the issue in any of the forms in which it was presented, and the lower courts gen erally refused, on ''political question'' grounds, to adjudicate the matter. In the absence of judicial elucidation, the Congress and the President have been required to accommodate themselves in the controversy to accept from each other less than each has been willing to accept but more than either has been willing to grant.

This is excerpted from an informative article on THE WAR POWER at FindLaw.com. You can read Hamilton's critique of Jefferson's wierdly Clintonian act of giving the Tripolitans back the ship they had just attacked us with here at The Founders' Constitution

It should be clear that our present situation, when the nation has been attacked, is very different from the various Cold War conflicts and Clinton interventions from Korea to Kosovo. Those were situations where the President initiated war without a declaration. This is a situation where the President responded to an attack on the United States, seeking authorization from Congress along the way.

The people who call this an un-Constitutional war seem to avoid basic questions. Like, what is a Declaration of War, anyway? What does a Declaration of War do? As far as I can tell, historically a D of W is an act by which one nation initiates hostilities against another. The Constitution does not say that US troops may never be committed to battle without a Declaration of War. It says that only Congress has the right to initiate hostilities against another nation. But we are now at war with enemies, some of them nations, who initiated hostilities against us long ago.

9 posted on 1/7/02 4:35 PM Pacific by Southern Federalist

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.