Yet, Another Blow to Our Constitution

The Fourth Amendment reads as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. On July 10, the Senate voted, by a margin of 69-28, on new provisions to update federal surveillance authority. This means that the phone companies involved in, up to the moment of passage, illegal surveillance of telecommunication activity are now immune from any prosecution for such activity- that was illegal until yesterday. Granted, the president's office told these companies that they needn't worry about any prosecution for helping him squash another one of our sacred civil liberties for the sake of presidential authority over his subjects. However, if my governor tells me it's O.K. to break into his political enemy's hotel rooms to install surveillance equipment, would I be free from prosecution? What if he scares the state legislature into passing a bill that says that such behavior is legal? I think not. But this is what has happened. The excuse is that the government needs these tools to go out and catch bad guys. They already had that authority. The difference is now the role of the court in acting as a safeguard against abuse is drastically diminished. It is disheartening that so many Democrats would forget why they hold a majority in both Houses of Congress. Though, all but one of the twenty eight "no" votes were Democratic (inculding both senators from New York), there were twenty one who voted "yes," one of whom was the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama. So, for the sake of not wanting to look weak on national security issues, twenty one Senatorial Democrats voted in favor of more executive power over the citizenry; thus looking weak on matters of integrity and safeguarding civil liberties. This circumstance is definitely food for thought for this November.

Happy Independence Day

Tomorrow we will commemorate what is officially recognized as our nation's birth. Many people will go watch fireworks and have picnics or family get-togethers or whatever. But how many will reflect on what it is to be American? What did our founding fathers dream about when they met in Philadelphia that summer 232 years ago? It is difficult to say since there were so many important individuals involved in the Revolution and subsequent creation of self-rule. Nonetheless, I believe that many of them had a libertarian (the true meaning of the word- not the American perversion of it) bent. You can see in the ammendments to the Constitution such topics as free speech, freedom from a religious establishment, the right to not have your home invaded by the authorities without just cause, equal access to the law, etc. Reflecting on these dreams, I can see that these goals were put forth by people who didn't necessarily live up to all of them. However, the hope for progress was always there. Throughout our country's development there has been a certain back-and-forth between those who want to achieve and improve upon those goals and those who want to establish authority over the governed. We are arguably in a period where authoritarian figures trump the needs and will of the citizenry for their own agenda. For instance, our administration is quietly sounding the war trumpet against Iran. Nevermind that we are currently mired down in a quagmire in Iraq and our mission in Afghanistan is seriously crippled because of such an abyssmal abuse of authority. Nevermind that a conventional attack against Iran would certainly instigate a draft and break our treasury for generations. Nevermind that it would turn pro-Western entities within Iran against us. Forget all that and focus on the circumstances of our birth. The colonials (read: early Americans) were under the thumb of a monarchy whose primary concern was grabbing up natural resources (i.e. tobacco) for trade in an international market with a promise of amassing great wealth. These colonials were treated as subjects to be ruled rather than full partners in their own government. Naturally, they became angry and rebelled against the crown and about 8 years later won their full independence. Does this sound familiar in regards to recent foreign policy snafus? As Washington left office he warned us to beware of foreign entanglements. How prophetic a statement. We need to take heed of this advice and withdraw as the world's police officer. I am not so naive as to believe that we can totally withdraw from foreign relations altogether. However, I do believe we can be diplomatic in a way that respects the sovereignty of others rather than using the military as aid workers, consular officers, etc.