The last couple weeks of '24' there has been a lot of discussion on the Constitution of the USA and how the assertive interrogation of terrorists violates such and how the listening in on citizens who call terrorist supporting organizations, violates the Constitution. This intrigues me since terrorists overseas being called are not citizens of the USA and our Constitution does not address their protections per se. The same with questioning enemy combatants who are not apparently acting on behalf of any country who are significantly implicated (shooting at civilians or Iraqi security forces or planting roadside bombs and such) in having some terror network information.
The thought I had as one who leans more in the direction of words having meaning and the authors' intent being important, is that it strikes me that the ones who are crying the loudest about the Constitution's literal application to non citizen terrorists groups being phoned or when a terrorist without a country is caught on a battlefield or in plotting the destruction of aircraft or citizen traveled domestic bridges for instance, and such a one is interrogated, these are the very ones who are more 'flexible' read wishy washy about the Constitutional intent generally. It means nothing for citizens, it means everything for terrorists and their USA citizen friends. This is a Marxist replacement of the alleged oppressed class which can do no wrong.
These 'flexible document types' on the Constitution have all kinds of definitional work-arounds in contexts related to the framers' worldview and understanding of what constitutes a marriage and common law, or framer understanding of the right to life of developing children, and the framers' understanding and intent related to the the establishment clause. Obviously this clause is not to prevent religions and churches and other faiths from lobbying and affecting public discourse and otherwise influencing government but rather to keep government from working to establishing a particular religion or sect as the official State sect or religion or faith.
Sadly these Constitutional 'living flexible document' types bemoaning the treatment of non citizen terrorists without a country are clearly lobbying for the Constitution's establishment clause being applied to teach that our government (that recognized rights coming from God and not the king or other heirarchies) should be establishing (choose your favorite expression) secularism, secular humanism, or atheism. I would say it is trying to establish agnosticism but to do so one must say they "do not know about God" and doing this mentions "God" and like the teaching of even intelligent design apparently even the mention of deity or some intelligence that is transcendent to human intelligence is anathama, disallowed, out of order... to the new living and flexible constitutionalists who care so strongly about the constitutional rights of terrorists.
OK, I think the last two episodes of '24' (other than the viability of suitcase nukes finally getting network mention) are very stupid in the continued banter of Jack and his brother and his father all taking turns deceiving and holding each other at gun point and torturing each other. Talk about dysfuctional families! But the conversation about the Constitution is important and sadly no characters in '24' are getting it anywhere near correctly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Joe,
You've highlighted something that I think is the most irritating part of dealing with today's postmodern mind. The left - including the "living-breathing" Constititution advocates - feel the liberty to shift and redefine terms/interpretations at will, as long as so doing will advance their long term goals. They will vociferously champion the specific meaning of the text (not to mention the Founders' intent) when AND ONLY when it protects one of their sacred cows (or seems to). When the true, intended meaning of the text as written stands in the way of what they want, then it must be defined in "context of the times," viewed as an outmoded idea, or blatantly given a meaning that they picked off of a bush somewhere on Jekyll Island.
Taking the long view of U.S. history, there have always been moments when presidents and administrations have gone beyond the Constitution. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and appropriated money without the consent of Congress during World War II. Roosevelt stretched as far as he possibly could. It was always argued that the crisis of the day demanded these actions. The natural state of government is that it always grabs for more power when given the opportunity. Once power is grabbed, it's ever harder to take it away from the authority that grabbed it. Once freedom is lost, it's very difficult to get it back. Frequently there is bloodshed and great personal sacrifice. There was even a major debate over the Bill of Rights in the early days of the republic. Some viewed these rights as God-given and were fearful of writing them in legislative form, as legislation and constitutional planks can be repealed or changed. Others took the view that putting a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would prevent the government from infringing. Well, the Bill of Rights is in the text, but that doesn't stop the government from infringing.
At times, I fear that we've ultimately lost our country. The rot is too deep and people are too divided to form a cohesive power block to check government power. "How can two walk together unless they be agreed?" It's in God's hands, of course. We were never guaranteed liberty and justice for all in perpetuity barring the Lord's return.
Well, I don't see what you guys are worried about. A casual glance at the Bill of Rights reveals that the hard left actually has perfect insight into the Constitution.
Everybody knows that the Bill of Rights was always intended to grant freedom of speech only to GOVERNMENT, and freedom of the press only to GOVERNMENT, and freedom of assembly only to GOVERNMENT, and protection against unreasonable searches only to GOVERNMENT, and protection against self-incrimination only to GOVERNMENT. It follows that hard leftists are veritably echoing the Founding Fathers when they inform us that the Second Amendment was intended to grant the right of armed self-defense only to GOVERNMENT. Isn't it obvious? (-:
Joseph, well said. Though it is about as obvious as global warming (which is apparently the same on the planet Mars, and same percentages as we allegedly experience here on Earth) being CAUSED by NON God-verment, and non holly-wierd, I mean non government vehicles.
It is all so very clear and just as you say....as the Witch in 'The Silver Chair' strums her instrument, drugs the air in the underground world, and dopes up the children.
Thank you for being a 'Puddleglum foot'. (-:
Post a Comment