6
Jan
2012

Betraying The Constitution

   Posted by: Dennis Perkinson   in Civil Liberties

“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
- James Madison

When George Mason and 56 other delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in May 1787, their original intent was to amend the ineffective Articles of Confederation that had been adopted after the Revolution; they ended up giving us a new law of the land. But when the draft of the document in Philadelphia was finished, Mason surprised his fellow Virginian, James Madison, who later came to be known as the “Father of the Constitution,” by refusing to sign it. His reason? He demanded that it contain a Bill of Rights.

Before the delegates finally agreed to the new Constitution, Madison and the other Founders eventually pledged to incorporate a Bill of Rights as the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution — a pledge they honored by riding through the towns and villages of the young country, making the case for the Bill of Rights which was approved by Congress and ratified in 1791.

But to fully appreciate the gift Mason, Madison and the other Founders passed on to us, we need to briefly look back to 1776 and recall that other great document that gave definition to what was to become the greatest nation the world has ever seen, the Declaration of Independence. In it is the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

THIS is how strongly the patriots from New England to Georgia and all points in between felt about all this. Many of them knew first-hand the evils of unchecked tyranny and THAT is why courageous foot soldiers were willing to die in the snows of Valley Forge, charge into cannon fire at Bunker Hill, make the impossible trek carrying captured cannon from Ticonderoga to Boston, and mark the snow with blood from their feet as they marched on Trenton.

On New Year’s Eve past, our President and Congress desecrated the Constitution they have sworn to defend when President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA); an Act which includes language that violates not only the Bill of Rights but other constitutionally protected liberties as well that were sealed in blood and passed down to us by those 18th century patriots.

The NDAA gives the President the authority to use the Armed Forces to detain any person “who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” Under the law, the President also may lock up anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the U.S. or its coalition allies “without trial, until the end of the hostilities.” The law embraces the notion that the U.S. military can be used even domestically to arrest an American citizen or anyone else who falls under such suspicion and detain them indefinitely without trial, an action that has been illegal since the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

Yes, the Obama administration got some wording put in to say that “nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the [2001] Authorization for Use of Military Force,” nor shall the NDAA “be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” And there were some waivers stuck in to give the President discretion over whether to send someone into the gulag of the Military Commissions system, possibly for the rest of a detainee’s life given the indefinite nature of what was formerly called the “war on terror.”

After signing the NDAA, President Obama engaged in some serious handwringing, expressed some “serious reservations” about some of the law’s provisions, and declared, “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” He added that he would interpret the law “in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”

But those of us who hoped that Barack Obama, the onetime constitutional law professor, would begin rolling back the aggressive assault on civil liberties begun by President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks should be more than just disappointed; we should be outraged. The existing laws to which Obama referred—including the original post9/11 Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001 and the Military Commissions Act passed in 2006 and modified in 2009— opened the door for presidents to declare anyone of their choice, be they American citizen or non-citizen, an “enemy combatant” and to subject the person to indefinite retention, military prison, or even assassination. Even though Obama swears he will not use the NDAA in a manner inconsistent “with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law,” who is to say what his successor, or his successor’s successor might do?

We may argue over whether the NDAA is the deepest wound ever inflicted on the Constitution or just another debilitating cut, noting that the United States has lost its way before beginning with the Alien and Sedition Acts, signed by our second President, John Adams. But to me, the NDAA represents the most serious affront to the rights of American citizens in my lifetime.

Behind closed doors, the law’s chief co-conspirators – Sens. Carl Levin, DMichigan; John McCain, R-Arizona; Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina; and Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut – injected into the NDAA ambiguous language that could be applied by the current President or the next or the next or the next… to Americans who resist endless war against “associated forces” somehow linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban. All four of these co-conspirators are prominent supporters of harsher and harsher sanctions against Iran, actions that have put in place the dry kindling that awaits some spark to touch off a new conflagration in the Middle East. Now that neocon operatives have “associated” al-Qaeda with Iran does that mean protesting a new war with Iran constitutes the kind of “support” that could prompt a long vacation at Guantanamo Bay?

The success enjoyed thus far by those determined to use artificially whipped up fear of “terrorism” in the same way Joe McCarthy used the dread of “communism” to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights is one of the most painful moments of my life. It is time we remember our Founders who had the courage to declare how importantly urgent was the enterprise upon which they, and the foot soldiers of George Washington’s army, were embarked. In 1776, at a time when it seemed far more likely than not that they would hang at the end a rope, they formally declared their support for a common effort to defeat tyranny: “We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

235 years later, are we unable to recognize what is at stake? Do we lack the courage to act in the tradition of the Founders when government deprives us of that which we should hold dear? Or do we delude ourselves into believing that by taking our Liberties our government is “keeping us safe?
This entry was posted on Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 3:58 pm and is filed under Civil Liberties. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed at this time.

Back to top