You'll Get Nothing and Like It!

In lieu of the recent controversy surrounding the Bush administration's torture policy, I wanted to review the Bill of Rights and see what rights remained unabridged in light of the policies of the previous administration (and in some cases continued by the current one). Let's take them one by one.

1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. While the Bush administration did not establish a religion, they did base some of their policies on the desires of the religious right. Freedom of the press is a different matter. They not only planted stories and talking points on one cable news network, but they also instituted a program of electronic surveillance of members of the press who were particularly critical of the administration. I'm going to say that the first amendment did survive fairly intact though. So the People are up 1-0.

2nd Amendment - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Without a doubt this amendment came through unscathed. There are more assault weapons in the hands of Americans than ever before. The poor deer don't stand a chance. People 2-0.

3rd Amendment - No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. The People are on a roll. This one also remains in place. Although I can't imagine a time when this would be needed. Regardless, the People are on a roll 3-0.

4th Amendment - 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. Here is where it all starts to go wrong. The Bush administration (and for that matter the Obama administration) have decided that they can indeed gather any information they feel necessary without obtaining a warrant. The at first illegal wiretapping program that is now somehow been deemed legal by Congress, flies in the face of the 4th Amendment. The wiretapping now assumes that the all electronic data gathered by the government is "reasonable" and therefore not subject to the 4th Amendment. It's amazing how easily government action becomes reasonable when the rights of Americans are in peril. The People lose their first one 3-1.

5th Amendment - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The now infamous "enemy combatant" label laid waste to this amendment. The President now has the power to hold any person, he deems a threat to the security of the United States, indefinitely and without trial or representation. Any individual can now be denied of at least liberty and property without due process. The Obama administration has gotten rid of the enemy combatant label, but has maintained the right to use the power when necessary. The People take one in the nuts, 3-2.

6th Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. This right goes hand in hand with the last one. The right to a speedy and public trial have been replaced by the right to held indefinitely without charge. The government gets around this one, by never charging the individuals with anything "criminal". While that allows them to avoid the letter of the law, it certainly violates the spirit of the law. After a strong start the People now stand in a dead heat 3-3.

7th Amendment - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. It looks like this one is still intact! The People rule! 4-3.

8th Amendment - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. And just like that, the winning streak comes to an end at one. Torture without a doubt would fit the definition of cruel and unusual punishment. Although the fact that it was used over 180 times in one month on one individual means that it certainly wasn't unusual to at least one person. Deadlocked again 4-4.

9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I would like to know exactly what rights are retained by the people at this point. We can be made to disappear by our government, we can be tortured by our government, we can be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and these are just the rights that are enumerated in this document. I not even sure I can think of what "others" we actually retain. This goes against the People. 4-5.

10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. I have the same thoughts about this one as the 9th Amendment. The Federal Government has at this point gathered so much power in the name of the People, that they have left little outside of their control. The states do retain control over their own elections and their day to day operations, so even though I have my doubts, I'm going to give this one to the People. That leaves the final score at 5-5.

The Obama administration has ended the use of torture, but I'm not sure that holding an individual indefinitely without charge or legal counsel does not also rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment. The 8th Amendment may or may not still be in tact depending upon your definition of the terms. One of my greatest hopes for the Obama administration was that they would reverse the course of the previous administration with regards to the Bill of Rights. It appears that although some steps have been taken (e.g., ending torture), we still have a long way to go to restore the rights that were supposedly guaranteed to us over 200 years ago.

Outrageous Fortune

The outrage from the Right over President Obama's actions at the recent meeting of American nations is just another example of the ridiculous nature of political debate. The manufactured outrage over President Obama accepting a book from Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez and his attendance at a speech by the Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, proves once again that the Republicans have no interest in a grown up debate about the direction of the country. Republican Presidents have a history of meeting with opposition leaders. Nixon met with Mao and Brezhnev when he was President. Regan most famously met with Gorbachev during his two terms. There was no outrage from the Right then. Nixon even presented Brezhnev with a car, even though the USSR had recently invaded one of their eastern European satellites.

I wonder where that outrage was when the President decided that our rule of law did not apply to him. Where was the outrage over the continued abuse of prisoners and the wanton destruction of our Constitutional freedoms. The right was entirely silent while George W. Bush willingly broke the laws of the land. They are also surprising quiet as our current President seeks to pardon those activities. The Right is more than willing to harp about a handshake, but ignoring previous illegal activity apparently meets with their approval.

There can now be no doubt that our government initiated and maintained an illegal torture program along with an illegal electronic wiretapping program. Those are unequivocally impeachable offenses. Those on the right were not outraged by these activities but are up in arms over the fact that President has released the Justice Department memos outlining the torture program. They don't care that prisoners were tortured in the name of all Americans, they only care that now everyone knows it. They didn't even bat an eye when the Vice President proudly proclaimed that we had indeed tortured prisoners.

The same Republicans who were willing to submit this country to the most expensive trial in history in order to try and embarrass a Democratic President, are now unwilling to hold one of their own liable for the highest of crimes. The impeachment trial of President Clinton was was based on what should have been a private matter. The acts that President Clinton committed, while being immoral, did not affect society as a whole and certainly had no impact on the Constitution. George W. Bush not only thumbed his nose at the rule of law in this country, but at the rights of every citizen. For those illegal activities, the Right would have us forgive and forget. Our current President seems to be of the same mind. Perhaps he is trying to curry some political favor with the Republicans in order to get some bipartisan support for his policies. If that is the reason, he should know better. Both the recent and historical actions of the Republicans have shown that this will try at every turn to foil the actions of this President.

Are Your Parents Home?

It has taken less than three months of the Obama administration for the language of Washington D.C. to deteriorate to the level of a grade school fight. Barack Obama came into office with the promise of a new Washington. One in which both sides were heard and could "disagree without being disagreeable" as the new president so eloquently stated. This dream of a bipartisan nirvana lasted until for about a week. Once Congress proposed the new budget and every single Republican in the House voted against it, the proverbial gloves were off.

It seems that the only response either side has is to accuse the other of the wanton destruction of our republic. Claims and counter claims are made with each side responding with shock and awe at either the audacity or stupidity of the other sides proposals. The Republicans say that the Obama administration is in the process of destroying not only the Constitution, but our way of life. The Democrats say that the Republicans are hypocrites and liars and that their only concern is the well being of corporate America and the wealthy. They both react with feigned sadness at the ignorance of their opponents. They both claim to have the only answer for security and long term well being of the country.

This week the Governor of Texas decided to make some thinly veiled threats about his state seceding from the union if policies of the current administration continued. The Democrats responded with their usual mix of sadness and shock that anyone could even suggest such a thing without addressing the underlying issues that caused the Governor to make those statements. His statements came at the now famous "Tea Party" events of April 15. While the protests may lack a central theme, there is clearly a portion of the country that feels our current economic direction is wrong. Unfortunately, ridiculing dissent does not make it go away.

The era of understanding that our new President proposed only two and half months ago has devolved into name calling and saber rattling. As I have stated before, in order to have an effective government, we need ideas from both sides of the aisle. Name calling and manufactured outrage will not make our policies any better. It is time for both sides to grow up.

The King Lives

Yesterday, the Obama Justice Department asked a judge to dismiss a case that was initially brought against the Bush administration for their warrantless wiretapping program. The Justice Department said that if the claim were to move forward it would risk disclosure of classified or sensitive material. Basically they state that regardless of the actual merits of the case, the mere risk of the release of government records should be enough to dismiss the claim. That is only the first of their reasons for asking for this dismissal.

The other grounds for dismissal is that, according to the Obama Justice Department, no lawsuit should be allowed to be brought against the government for wiretapping unless they somehow publicly release information that they have gathered, irrespective of whether the means of gathering that information was legal or not. It seems that the Obama Justice Department is not only seeking to immunize the Bush administration from any claims of wrongdoing based on their warrantless wiretapping program, they are also seeking to expand the right of the government to the point that they can invade the privacy of its citizens at will.

The Obama Justice Department is claiming the right of sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is a concept based on old English law that basically states that the king or state is immune from having civil or legal claims brought against it. There are indeed valid reasons for making this claim, since the courts would literally be filled with people bringing frivolous suits if the government were not immune in most instances. However, when the government blatantly disregards one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, I believe they forfeit their right to use this defense. I wrote an article about the Imperial Bush presidency back in May of '08. The Bush administration wielded power as if we lived in a monarchy. They clearly overstepped their constitutional boundaries and did so without regret. I honestly thought all that changed on January 20th of this year. I had no fantasies of President Obama changing the world overnight. I certainly did not believe that the economy would all of sudden reverse course and go from bust to boom. However I did believe that the Constitution would once again take it's rightful place. I did believe that our government would stop treating it's citizens like criminals. I did believe that we would free to live our lives without the constant threat of government surveillance. I guess I was wrong.

As I have stated before, my main desire for this administration was that we would ave an Executive branch that acts in accordance with and respects the Constitution. I ask again, where the hell is the man who said the choice between safety and our ideals is a false one? I will reprint the fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights here and ask the question; Does this opinion by the Justice Department, in any way, belong in a country that in theory is governed by this document?

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.