The U.S. Constitution - Is It Meaningless?

When I was 15 years old as a young page boy in the House of Representatives I swore my first oath to support and defend the United States Constitution. Later, as a Member of the Congress (and as a Republican and a conservative), I took that same oath to which every currently sitting congressman and senator has supposedly has sworn their allegiance.

How then can we explain the U.S. Congress being stampeded by President Bush into passing a new law that virtually repeals the guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure contained in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

My answer -- cowardly fear -- but not fear of the bogeyman of "terrorism" -- but fear of not getting re-elected!

Politics rules, to Hell with principle! Most of the minority Republicans in Congress, sheep that they are, went along with Bush's demand for even greater police power over all of us, but the real hypocrites were the Democrats that now control both Houses. I am always nervous when I find myself in agreement with The New York Times but they said it right: "It was appalling to watch over the last few days as Congress — now led by Democrats — caved in to yet another unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush’s powers, this time to spy on Americans in violation of basic constitutional rights. Many of the 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 in the House who voted for the bill said that they had acted in the name of national security, but the only security at play was their job security."

These are the same Democrats that have been loudly attacking, (as he should be attacked), the befuddled U.S. Attorney General Gonzales for violating civil rights using the PATRIOT Act. And they also attacked President Bush for his secret wiretapping when it was revealed late last year. As The Times noted the law "...would allow the government to intercept, without a warrant, every communication into or out of any country, including the United States. Instead of explaining all this to American voters — the minimal benefits and the enormous risks — the Democrats have allowed Mr. Bush and his fear mongering to dominate all discussions on terrorism and national security."

According to neutral observers the new law gives the U.S. government virtually unchecked  power to secretly wiretap all our phone calls and spy on and read our emails, faxes or other electronic communications without any court order and no due process of law. This is a radical, subversive departure from American legal traditions, as pointed out by my colleague, Mark Nestmann.

As an an attorney I say this new wiretap surveillance law is yet another abdication of the rule of law and a violation of due process in America. Gone is the requirement that laws must relate to legitimate government interests and may not result in unfair or arbitrary treatment of an individual. Now impartial judges are replaced by faceless bureaucrats and anti-terror police who will decide our fate.

In 1757, Edmund Burke wrote: "No passion so effectively robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear." Fear as a decisive factor in political and national life is nothing new in history. But Mr. Bush has made fear his trademark. He constantly uses the fear factor to get his way, describing threats that are amorphous, shadowy, unclear, yet perceived as very real, the threat of terrorism.

Politicians too often have employed fear as a controlling and guiding principle to achieve their dubious ends. Offering themselves as protectors, national leaders have touted their nostrums against alleged foreign invasions, barbaric tribes, hated minorities, Communists, drugs and a host of other manufactured threats. Now the fear of the hour is terrorism. Yes, the threat is real and it must be guarded against, but not by surrendering our freedom.

Last year President Bush was able to rush the dubious Military Commission Act through the Congress. Now he has been able ram through this latest radical surveillance measure. This is the raw politics of anti-terrorism in all its tawdry operation. If a member of Congress does not support whatever the proposal may be, he or she is accused of being 'soft' on terrorism. Nearly six years after 9/11, and with the miserable track record of Attorney General Gonzales, a majority in Congress rolls over and proclaims: "I am against the terrorists too" -- as they vote in favor of trashing the Bill of Rights.

If you believe in liberty you ought to be outraged by this dangerous political climate. And don't think for a moment that Big Brother's police will limit this unchecked surveillance law to anti-terrorism alone. Just as they have done with the PATRIOT Act, this vast power will be used to spy on anyone they wish, whether alleged IRS tax evaders or SEC violators. No one is safe from trumped up charges based on spying on our phone calls, emails and other communications.

When we at the Sovereign Society recommend offshore financial havens for placement of bank accounts or asset protection trusts, or suggest countries for a possible foreign residence, the existence of the rule of law always is a major factor in our choice. Yet, dear reader, we both know that in the United States anti-terror laws have seriously compromised what we used to know as the rule of law.

So who is winning -- freedom or terrorism? This raises the question; just how far are Americans willing to go in surrendering their liberty and their privacy? How much are we willing to pay for this promised, illusory defense? Are we willing to become Fortress America with Big Brother watching and listening to all that we so?

Americans had better put aside these politically inspired fears, and start asking and answering that question -- before we enjoy neither safety nor liberty.