What gets missed in all of the hullabaloo about the "national security" objectives of the surveillance state that Bush and the lapdog Congress have imposed on us is that all of this monitoring, searching, etc. gets into much more than looking for suspected terrorists. Anyone remember Michael Vick getting busted with weed by TSA while going through a search at the airport (long before the dog fighting disclosure)? Just like the discovery of Spitzer's whoring, the increased scrutiny aimed at "terrorists" winds up catching others in the dragnet. This kind of total surveillance society is something that so-called "law and order conservatives" have been dreaming about for decades, and the "war on terror" handed them this issue up on a silver platter. It's something that should scare the bejeesus out of folks who value liberty and privacy.

That said, with respect to Spitzer, to the extent that the Feds are checking the account activity of our elected officials to monitor transactions suggestive of possible corruption, I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing. Provided it wasn't politically motivated in the first instance, that is. Although query whether the investigators should have simply shut down their investigation when they found no evidence of corruption. True, there are people who will say that "he's still committing a crime" -- but at what point does that logic stop? Do we really want a society that prosecutes every person who commits a technical criminal violation, even if those "crimes" might be a little unsavory?

Another backdoor to total surveillance here too:

<link>

Actually one of the reasons I support Obama is due to his civil rights law background, and civil rights are being taken away from all Americans right now. Now, I am not saying that this is the intent of Comcast, but if the telecom industry is willing to go along with warrantless wire tapping, how do you know Comcast won't?

Jefferson, that quintessential believer in small government while he was an outsider: opposing almost all of the increased arrogation of powers advocated by Hamilton, Adams and others, once in Office found himself unable to resist the siren call of expanding Executive powers.

While having a Civil Rights background would perhaps help restrain Obama, I doubt that it would make that much of a dent. If Jefferson could not resist overturning the very structures he helped create, I doubt Obama will be any more willing to take the risks that come with protecting civil and individual rights.

I love how you and others are upset that measures first taken up to combat terrorism are being used more broadly to put away other criminals. Not round up innocents in the dead of night ala Stalin. What's the problem?

What are your thoughts on the 14th Amendment? That was written to articulate the rights of freed slaves. Since then it's been cited in defense of abortion and other privacy rights. How does that distortion sit with you?

At least he would have a stronger understanding of the price of what he was doing. That would be a welcome start.

I'm tickled pink when 14th Amendment due process rights are extended. After the Civil War, the Southern states tried to disenfranchise the newly freed slaves and rely on the Dred Scott decision to say that they weren't people and had no rights to sue against illegal government action by state or local officials. The 14th Am. protects ALL OF US from being denied "life, liberty or property without due process of law." It also solved the Dred Scott problem by defining all persons born or naturalized in the USA as citizens of the US and of the state in which they reside. I don't want the gov't taking my stuff arbitrarily, much less killing me. How can anybody be against due process?

You know, your comment inspires me. I'm going to watch A Man For All Seasons tonight. <link> Thomas Moore in the play had something to say about giving criminals the protection of the law: "This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! "

degsme:

Jefferson, that quintessential believer in small government while he was an outsider: opposing almost all of the increased arrogation of powers advocated by Hamilton, Adams and others, once in Office found himself unable to resist the siren call of expanding Executive powers.

While having a Civil Rights background would perhaps help restrain Obama, I doubt that it would make that much of a dent. If Jefferson could not resist overturning the very structures he helped create, I doubt Obama will be any more willing to take the risks that come with protecting civil and individual rights.

I'm betting that Jefferson never got pulled over on a DWB stop :)

I've got no problem with the 14th Amendment, either. My point was: many laws are broadened to address issues unintended when originally written. If that bothers you, it should bother you in every instance that it occurs -- not just the ones that you find burdensome on personal or ideological grounds.

"It also solved the Dred Scott problem by defining all persons born or naturalized in the USA as citizens of the US and of the state in which they reside. "

There are a few exceptions worth noting because only such individuals are citizens if they are subject to our laws and our jurisprudence. Namely individuals with diplomatic immunity are not citizens nor are those subject to other jurisdiction due to treaty (children of diplomats, for example, or Native Americans, or children of foreign soldiers, who are subject by treaty to their own sovereign tribes. Note that statute extends citizenship to Native Americans, however). But you are generally right and those are extremely rare exceptions esp. now that citizenship is extended to Native Americans.

Just figured I would explain "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" before some Know-Nothing starts pontificating about children of illegal immigrants (who *are* covered under that amendment).

However, great post about the rule of law and its importance.

Ah, but you see, I'm not a strict constructionist. I believe in a living Constitution and, if given a choice, tie base goes to the runner, i.e., individual liberties win most of the time.

I think that there are parts of the Constitution (for example, the 3rd Amendment) which admit to a strict constructionist interpretation. In these case, there is a bright and timeless line. (Interestingly the only jurisprudence regarding the 3rd Amendment was in 1982).

However, strict constructionism starts to break down when relative terminology is used. I don't think the word "unusual" in the 8th Amendment can imply anything other than a methodological approach given current context and accepted punishments. Otherwise, I guarantee you that the electric chair would have been considered "unusual" when the amendment was passed, as would most of our capital punishment methods today (we would be left with hanging only).

Similarly, a speeding ticket of any amount would have likely been considered cruel and unusual at a time when all travel was on horse and carriage. In short a 1789 standard for these things runs into problems anywhere technology or society changes.

I love how you and others are upset that measures first taken up to combat terrorism are being used more broadly to put away other criminals. Not round up innocents in the dead of night ala Stalin. What's the problem?

Well, they have used torture to try and wring information from suspected terrorists. The rounding up does in occur in other nations, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. No wonder so many of them hate America.

Also, by using that same information meant to catch terrorists to pursue and prosecute any criminal, you are affirming that the actual intent of such intrusive laws is not, in fact, to fight terrorism. These laws never would have passed in the first place if that was the case. Either they must be used as intended, or repealed and resubmitted to be debated in Congress as such, because they never were. In a democracy, to do otherwise is a problem!

He did face the power of the government used on behalf of "The monied classes" and yet was perfectly happy to involve the USA in what essentially was a commercial venture.

But your point is apt

.

I actually think that Bush and Cheney both understand the tradeoffs - they are not dumb people. They just have a world vision of what the USA SHOULD be like that is dramatically more hierarchical and obescient than we do.

degsme:

Jefferson, that quintessential believer in small government while he was an outsider: opposing almost all of the increased arrogation of powers advocated by Hamilton, Adams and others, once in Office found himself unable to resist the siren call of expanding Executive powers.

While having a Civil Rights background would perhaps help restrain Obama, I doubt that it would make that much of a dent. If Jefferson could not resist overturning the very structures he helped create, I doubt Obama will be any more willing to take the risks that come with protecting civil and individual rights.

Good post.

Jefferson talked a good game, but when push came to shove he was sleeping with Sally Hemmings his slave.