“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded.” These prophetic words were spoken by none other than the Father of the Constitution, James Madison. America’s fourth President had the wisdom to see beyond the litany of challenges facing our founders and innately understood how the power of fear could be weaponized against future generations to erode the very freedoms they had fought so hard to obtain. Madison was fully aware of the primal human need for safety, and that perceived threats to this safety could be used one day to justify attacks on our fundamental liberties.
I think there was a collective naïveté in America when the Patriot Act was first introduced. Most of us still held on to some amount of trust in our government. Also, we didn’t have near the amount of surveillance technology that we do today, and assumed that if you didn’t break the law, you had absolutely no reason to worry about being surveyed. Boy, we’re we ever wrong! Another honest and timely post, Tulsi. Mahalo nui.
I hope that more and more people are paying attention now, and ready to make sure those in power actually protect our civil liberties rather than just talking about it.
We were in shock from 9/11, which was a shock to the system.
Candidly the mistake was involving the Laws in War.
In war the laws fall silent.
There’s no way to have Civil Liberties for enemies and there never will be. War is killing on sight, it is slaughter. War with enemies hiding as civilians can best be handled- I mean the least damage to innocents - by ruthless interrogations leading to cascading raids and destroying their networks. If they want rights of soldiers fight in uniform.
Fight out of uniform, lose Geneva Convention Rights. Those rules exist to protect civilians.
War and counter terrorism at the scale practiced by Jihad at the time - There’s no pretty way to do it. War is murder. Period.
Intelligence and counter terrorism is - repulsive.
These are things to keep Law away from , not attempt to “legalize” or “soften” war.
A internal debate happened in the Bush administration on whether to let the military and the sharp end of intelligence handle the war yes in America, or to “make it legal.” Ashcroft won and with dreary predictability the tools of war and Intelligence (Intelligence is low level war, war by other means) the awful tools of war were placed in the hands of lawyers. I suspect this was simple cowardice and legal covering for the Administration not misplaced morality.
At the time they were warned - if you take your laws to war you lose the war and the laws.
We have lost both.
At the time old Intelligence hands warned that a domestic Intelligence group would inevitably turn against the people. It did. They also warned that counter-intelligence is distasteful and frankly unhealthy to the people doing it, and that domestic counter-terrorism staff in America (anywhere) are frankly unless very small in size going to attract the wrong sorts, it most certainly did.
We took the laws to war and lost the wars and the laws, in this bad bargain we built an enormous domestic security apparatus with...not much to do. So they raid Political opponents and the MyPillow guy. 🤦.
Our Civil Liberties aren’t under attack, that battle lost.
Our Constitutional government is gone as well. Troops swore in Biden, that’s not the writing on the wall, it’s the wall falling on you.
As far as recourse to the Courts- that’s lawyers. Judges are of course lawyers in charge. Why do they overturn these powers given the Law, and how?
We still for a time can speak, this is at the discretion of power.
No power is in their way.
I don’t mean to be demoralizing, these are the facts and the mistakes that led us here, talk did not save us before and won’t now.
The way forward; Either pay the price of Freedom or stay out of their way and hope sane people come to power. That’s not freedom but it is survival. The price of Freedom is to run all the risks Tulsi Gabbard and other veterans ran - yes, those risks.
I’m a veteran as well. There’s no magic to this ... I myself need to see the same level of commitment from Americans to even believe its winnable.
Excellent comment. Thank you. I believe this is all true. Especially that last line. I’m not sure what the next step is but you didn’t mention that it’s already a vicious civil cultural war. Many suggestions have been made for a parallel ‘economy’. Seems to me the book ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is coming true.
Oct 29, 2022·edited Oct 29, 2022Liked by Tulsi Gabbard
Another home run. Style and clarity together. It becomes clearer every day that your comprehension of the constitution is on a par with Ron and Rand Paul, and even the Founders themselves.
Your maturity has allowed you to see through the deception which is the Democrat Party, and your decision to break with them is very welcome. This is truly a battle for the nation's soul and way of life, and for the Constitution itself.
If it were not beneath you in terms of style, I'd expect to see a "Make Orwell Fiction Again" Teeshirt on you some time soon!
Oct 29, 2022·edited Nov 5, 2022Liked by Tulsi Gabbard
I am looking forward to this discussion between you and Ron, Tulsi. As you may recall from my comment on your introductory article, you were one of only five politicians with integrity I could name. Ron was on that list, too.
In 1798, after the passage of the Sedition Act (the PATRIOT Act of its time), Thomas Jefferson stated:
“A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolved, and the people recovering their true sight, restoring their government to its true principles. It is true, that in the meantime, we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war, and long oppressions of enormous public debt.”
I do believe we are seeing the spells finally beginning to dissolve 🙌
The Consortium Imposing the Growing Censorship Regime -- and Our New Live, Prime-Time Rumble Program – Glenn Greenwald - Oct. 28, 2022
We are launching a new live, one-hour, prime-time news broadcast. Armed with cable-sized budgets, it will be part of a network that Russell Brand has already debuted.
• The regime of censorship being imposed on the internet – by a consortium of DC Dems, billionaire-funded "disinformation experts," the US Security State, and liberal employees of media corporations – is dangerously intensifying in ways I believe are not adequately understood.
• The people who work for the newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos and who write for the magazine controlled and funded by Laurene Powell Jobs (widow of Steve Jobs – she was a big ($6M+) donor to Hillary) are very worried this morning about the unprecedented crisis we face of billionaires buying and controlling the flow of news and information.
• The greatest damage in the West right now is being caused by self-anointed experts claiming to "combat disinformation," and NGOs funded by billionaires and the US/UK Security State dedicated to "anti-disinformation campaigns": @AtlanticCouncil, @DFRLab, @ISDglobal, @OCCRP, etc.
• And it wouldn't be possible without the vulgar use of corporate employees they call "reporters" whose only function is to troll the internet looking for establishment critics to silence: @oneunderscore__, @BrandyZadrozny, @TaylorLorenz, @RMac18, @MikeIsaac: censorship activists.
• Liberals spent decades suggesting (correctly as it turns out) that Reagan suffered various forms of senility, including onset of Alzheimer's, in his second term, but now they're trying to invent a new rule that it's bigoted against disabled people to discuss cognitive impairment
• Meanwhile, the cable show that has **the largest audience of younger Democrats** -- meaning self-identified Democrats between the ages of 24-54 -- is . . . the Tucker Carlson Tonight/Show, appearing 8 pm ET on Fox News
• Joe Biden often has no idea where he is, is often unable to string together two coherent sentences, and has started to fall asleep in the middle of interviews.
Why are you so bigoted against people “who struggle with a stutter”?
• Bernie Sanders condemns the House Progressives' original letter on Ukraine, says they were right to apologize for it and then retract it because it should never been issued at all, proceeds to recite Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton's views on Ukraine
• One of the signers of the now disgraced letter (that appallingly wondered if diplomacy might be a useful tool) -- @RepRaskin -- is commendably engaged in all sorts of self-abasement.
He's denouncing diplomacy advocates as -- transphobic colonialists
Devotee of civil liberties here and a major Tulsi fan. What I am trying to navigate is this....is when she references civil liberties, is it for everyone? I hear advocacy and equity for the working class. That is a good one. I hear advocacy for sustaining a string middle class. Good one. I hear less government. Good one. Reduce war. Good one. Have never been a democrat. More independent. Can someone here clarify? Is she advocating civil liberty, justice and support of all citizens? Or, is she tending to the concept of certain types of citizens. After all she is a female, person of color, into an alternative religion and opposed to the corporate industrial complex. I am confused my friends. What are your thoughts?
It would help those of us on the fence about Tulsi if she would respond to Occidentalist and David Shipley’s comments in her first article: Why I’m Leaving the Democratic Party
I did a lot of work on protecting civil liberties in Congress over the last decade. However, there are a lot of people who haven't been paying attention or are not as informed about how they are being undermined.
...Having watched the shenanigans emanating from the House (via CSPAN-I) and the Senate via CSPAN-II) for over 30 years, it becomes crystal clear that the vast MAJORITY of members of the House and Senate have NEVER EVEN READ ANY of the (7) Articles, nor (24) sections - including the (27) Amendments - they all SWEAR to UPHOLD!
One thing you can do to help EXPOSE those in and outside of the US federal government - members of the so-called "NGO" YOU were once a member of - explicitly- the one-world-order zealots within the Council on Foreign Relations who (collectively) are step-by-step destroying the US as a sovereign country - including We (the formerly) sovereign Americans into a totalitarian HELL of (global) "unification" - (to be) ruled by Un elected and Un accountable (LIFETIME) nomenklatura and apparatchik INTERNATIONAL bureaucrats - who WILL RATION (global) food, energy and ALL aspects of 'life' on earth in the name of: SUSTAINABILITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE, EQUITY and ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE into perpetuity - UNLESS a MIRACLE happens that the great mass of human beings JUST SAY NO! ENOUGH of the damn "PLANNERS" - planners who produce NOTHING of value and are mere CONSUMERS of WHAT OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE.
another tool of the elite state -- "investigate until you `find` evidence of a crime" ... completely morally corrupt ... investigation on "suspicion" should never be allowed. our police (and FBI, etc) dollars should not support investigators who do not have bona fide evidence of a crime to follow bak to its source.
Great message! It is always good to listen to what Ron Paul has to say. Thanks.
“Paper money polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in ti, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people.” — Peletiah Webster, 1789
End the Chaos… End the Elastic Standard System… End The FED
Good points. However, I would disagree with the notion of a "right to privacy".
There is no such thing as a "right to privacy" in the Fourth Amendment. This right is an [un]enumerated* right that was read into the Constitution when the Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. I used to agree with this assessment, but I have now come to believe that a "right to privacy" is simply a legal fiction. Human beings are social animals, and, as such, there really isn't anything that we do that can be considered 100% "private" (secluded, excluded, separate, segregated, etc.) from public life.
*Upon re-reading this a day later, I realized that I switched the definitions of an unenumerated and an enumerated right.
I think the 4th Amendment supports a de facto right to privacy in that it prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court has held that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, and therefore in violation of the 4th. Riley v California, 2014. In the absence of both warrantless searches and voluntary display, a spontaneous privacy exists.
A “right to privacy” is (I believe to be) a legal fiction. A legal fiction is an assertion that is used by a court to help make legal decisions. For example, the idea of having “separate but equal” institutions for different races (as decided by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896) was a legal fiction.
There is no right to “privacy” explicitly stated in the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court decided that the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to “privacy” in 1965 when they decided Griswold v. Connecticut. When the Court does this, they have established what is called an unenumerated right, i.e., a right not explicitly stated in the Constitution but is inferred by other rights.
My contention is that the “right to privacy” is a legal fiction because human beings are social animals. There is nothing that we do that does not effect another person in some way. This means that individual human interactions combine to create a common culture/society. If an individual were to do something that was deleterious to those combined interactions, then it would be in the interest of society to bring that individual’s (ostensibly private) interactions to the public square.
I get your point, but I don’t to live in a society where I’m not to secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, thanks. My private life is no one’s business as long as I bring no harm to another person. Thanks
Don't misunderstand me. I agree entirely with that sentiment. I want to be able to do what I want and be left alone as well.
The point that I am trying to make is that I don't think that that is possible, whether we like it or not, and, thus, calls to a fictitious "right to privacy" (from a legal perspective) are just one of those euphonious phrases that politicians or other people in the public square use to assert a point regardless of its worth.
On a side note: I don't think privacy (at least in the form that we know it) will exist in the next 10-20 years. So far, I've been arguing against a legal "right to privacy", however, I think the entire idea of privacy will become irrelevant with the advent of AI and other more sophisticated technology.
I don't like to think of the implications of that. I would that it were otherwise, and I hope I'm wrong.
Sigh. I suspect you are correct. A police surveillance state that will probably be the inevitable result of our technological progress. Also with subsequent generations growing up with cameras in schools, constant online monitoring, etc. they'll never understand the difference. I'm afraid that frog has already begun to boil.
It's become as Jello Biafra said: "Give me convenience or give me death."
On the bright side, however, I would like to think that with newer forms of technology will come newer forms of ensuring individual rights.
Far fetched, perhaps, but I don't see any reason why an individual cannot utilize an AI and/or surveillance system in the same way that the state does.
The state will still have an advantage, or course, but it's always been like that, hasn't it?
That's a good question. I don't know, precisely. Government is tricky business. If it wasn't, history wouldn't be so bloody.
As far as I can tell, there really isn't any one clear-cut solution that would answer that question. With the advent of new technologies and other innovations, our current form of government becomes stagnant overtime, and is unable to address the issues that we face today.
That, I think, is probably the most innovative idea of the founders of this country: they designed a system of government that can evolve (hence the addition of constitutional amendments/constitutional conventions).
Side note: I think that we're due for a constitutional convention within the next decade or so. I first started saying this a couple days after the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson. Justice Thomas said in that opinion (I'm paraphrasing) that the Supreme Court had done a lot of damage to the country by reading in "rights" to the Constitution instead of having states make their own decisions.
People so eagerly pronounce the death of our liberties, while you uphold them. The so-called Patriot Act should have failed the test of 5 USC 137 Marbury vs Madison. It is anti-constitutional and should have been overturned on that basis. Unfortunately, many of our contemporaries are so fear-driven that they have self-lobotomized and now they trash the very Constitution that would pre-empt the realization of the most fearsome of human events: dictatorship and then violent civil war.
I am so glad to see you on Substack. Thank you so much for upholding the Constitution.
I think there was a collective naïveté in America when the Patriot Act was first introduced. Most of us still held on to some amount of trust in our government. Also, we didn’t have near the amount of surveillance technology that we do today, and assumed that if you didn’t break the law, you had absolutely no reason to worry about being surveyed. Boy, we’re we ever wrong! Another honest and timely post, Tulsi. Mahalo nui.
I hope that more and more people are paying attention now, and ready to make sure those in power actually protect our civil liberties rather than just talking about it.
Make sure.
🤔
I guess we’ll have more info in 8 days, probably more of the same.
We were in shock from 9/11, which was a shock to the system.
Candidly the mistake was involving the Laws in War.
In war the laws fall silent.
There’s no way to have Civil Liberties for enemies and there never will be. War is killing on sight, it is slaughter. War with enemies hiding as civilians can best be handled- I mean the least damage to innocents - by ruthless interrogations leading to cascading raids and destroying their networks. If they want rights of soldiers fight in uniform.
Fight out of uniform, lose Geneva Convention Rights. Those rules exist to protect civilians.
War and counter terrorism at the scale practiced by Jihad at the time - There’s no pretty way to do it. War is murder. Period.
Intelligence and counter terrorism is - repulsive.
These are things to keep Law away from , not attempt to “legalize” or “soften” war.
A internal debate happened in the Bush administration on whether to let the military and the sharp end of intelligence handle the war yes in America, or to “make it legal.” Ashcroft won and with dreary predictability the tools of war and Intelligence (Intelligence is low level war, war by other means) the awful tools of war were placed in the hands of lawyers. I suspect this was simple cowardice and legal covering for the Administration not misplaced morality.
At the time they were warned - if you take your laws to war you lose the war and the laws.
We have lost both.
At the time old Intelligence hands warned that a domestic Intelligence group would inevitably turn against the people. It did. They also warned that counter-intelligence is distasteful and frankly unhealthy to the people doing it, and that domestic counter-terrorism staff in America (anywhere) are frankly unless very small in size going to attract the wrong sorts, it most certainly did.
We took the laws to war and lost the wars and the laws, in this bad bargain we built an enormous domestic security apparatus with...not much to do. So they raid Political opponents and the MyPillow guy. 🤦.
Our Civil Liberties aren’t under attack, that battle lost.
Our Constitutional government is gone as well. Troops swore in Biden, that’s not the writing on the wall, it’s the wall falling on you.
As far as recourse to the Courts- that’s lawyers. Judges are of course lawyers in charge. Why do they overturn these powers given the Law, and how?
We still for a time can speak, this is at the discretion of power.
No power is in their way.
I don’t mean to be demoralizing, these are the facts and the mistakes that led us here, talk did not save us before and won’t now.
The way forward; Either pay the price of Freedom or stay out of their way and hope sane people come to power. That’s not freedom but it is survival. The price of Freedom is to run all the risks Tulsi Gabbard and other veterans ran - yes, those risks.
I’m a veteran as well. There’s no magic to this ... I myself need to see the same level of commitment from Americans to even believe its winnable.
Your turn, or pass.
Freedom isn’t Free.
Excellent comment. Thank you. I believe this is all true. Especially that last line. I’m not sure what the next step is but you didn’t mention that it’s already a vicious civil cultural war. Many suggestions have been made for a parallel ‘economy’. Seems to me the book ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is coming true.
Well "Atlas" is trying, mind you Atlas being our elites, or apex parasites, or whatever.
Then they found out they can't cook, or do anything other than shuffle emails and policy papers around.
Perhaps soon they'll find out they can't grow food either.
They can't drive to the store, if there's food there...
The people deciding can't drive, they're driven.
What's actually needed is for them to discover they can't fight, above all we must remember we can.
Another home run. Style and clarity together. It becomes clearer every day that your comprehension of the constitution is on a par with Ron and Rand Paul, and even the Founders themselves.
Your maturity has allowed you to see through the deception which is the Democrat Party, and your decision to break with them is very welcome. This is truly a battle for the nation's soul and way of life, and for the Constitution itself.
If it were not beneath you in terms of style, I'd expect to see a "Make Orwell Fiction Again" Teeshirt on you some time soon!
I just saw someone with this shirt the other day! I complimented him on it. Love the message!
I am looking forward to this discussion between you and Ron, Tulsi. As you may recall from my comment on your introductory article, you were one of only five politicians with integrity I could name. Ron was on that list, too.
In 1798, after the passage of the Sedition Act (the PATRIOT Act of its time), Thomas Jefferson stated:
“A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolved, and the people recovering their true sight, restoring their government to its true principles. It is true, that in the meantime, we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war, and long oppressions of enormous public debt.”
I do believe we are seeing the spells finally beginning to dissolve 🙌
I think so. Your comments everywhere are worth reading.
I am also convinced that a number of traditional Democrat constituencies are learning that the party is not good for them.
Aww, thank you, Mike, and I think so, too. Pretty soon, it will carry such a toxic stigma, no one of principle will want to be associated with it.
Excellent quote. I think Jefferson would likely have said the same of covidmania.
💯
Thanks!
Thank you Tulsi, for being a light in the darkness. Continue to expose their hypocrisy.
An EXTRAORDINARY good news !!
The Consortium Imposing the Growing Censorship Regime -- and Our New Live, Prime-Time Rumble Program – Glenn Greenwald - Oct. 28, 2022
We are launching a new live, one-hour, prime-time news broadcast. Armed with cable-sized budgets, it will be part of a network that Russell Brand has already debuted.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-consortium-imposing-the-growing
Wow total turn off. This is so tacky on such a classy substack. Be gone with your commercials
Thank you --- GG tweets – extracted ~Oct. 28 period https://twitter.com/ggreenwald
• The regime of censorship being imposed on the internet – by a consortium of DC Dems, billionaire-funded "disinformation experts," the US Security State, and liberal employees of media corporations – is dangerously intensifying in ways I believe are not adequately understood.
• The people who work for the newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos and who write for the magazine controlled and funded by Laurene Powell Jobs (widow of Steve Jobs – she was a big ($6M+) donor to Hillary) are very worried this morning about the unprecedented crisis we face of billionaires buying and controlling the flow of news and information.
• The greatest damage in the West right now is being caused by self-anointed experts claiming to "combat disinformation," and NGOs funded by billionaires and the US/UK Security State dedicated to "anti-disinformation campaigns": @AtlanticCouncil, @DFRLab, @ISDglobal, @OCCRP, etc.
• That absurd spectacle of Dept. of Homeland Security appointing that deranged #Resistance fanatic (Nina Jankowicz) as Disinformation Czar was just one piece of this censorship regime uniting state and corporate power, funded by oligarchs, to shield propaganda from dissent: (Facebook, Tweeter, YouTube) -- Biden’s “Minster of Truth” Nina Jankowicz Participated in Secret NATO-Funded Cabal to Subvert Western Democracies Using Disinformation as Cover - https://www.revolver.news/2022/05/biden-minster-of-truth-nina-jankowicz-and-the-secret-nato-funded-cabal-to-subvert-western-democracies-using-disinformation-as-cover/
• And it wouldn't be possible without the vulgar use of corporate employees they call "reporters" whose only function is to troll the internet looking for establishment critics to silence: @oneunderscore__, @BrandyZadrozny, @TaylorLorenz, @RMac18, @MikeIsaac: censorship activists.
• Liberals spent decades suggesting (correctly as it turns out) that Reagan suffered various forms of senility, including onset of Alzheimer's, in his second term, but now they're trying to invent a new rule that it's bigoted against disabled people to discuss cognitive impairment
• Meanwhile, the cable show that has **the largest audience of younger Democrats** -- meaning self-identified Democrats between the ages of 24-54 -- is . . . the Tucker Carlson Tonight/Show, appearing 8 pm ET on Fox News
• Joe Biden often has no idea where he is, is often unable to string together two coherent sentences, and has started to fall asleep in the middle of interviews.
Why are you so bigoted against people “who struggle with a stutter”?
• Bernie Sanders condemns the House Progressives' original letter on Ukraine, says they were right to apologize for it and then retract it because it should never been issued at all, proceeds to recite Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton's views on Ukraine
• One of the signers of the now disgraced letter (that appallingly wondered if diplomacy might be a useful tool) -- @RepRaskin -- is commendably engaged in all sorts of self-abasement.
He's denouncing diplomacy advocates as -- transphobic colonialists
Devotee of civil liberties here and a major Tulsi fan. What I am trying to navigate is this....is when she references civil liberties, is it for everyone? I hear advocacy and equity for the working class. That is a good one. I hear advocacy for sustaining a string middle class. Good one. I hear less government. Good one. Reduce war. Good one. Have never been a democrat. More independent. Can someone here clarify? Is she advocating civil liberty, justice and support of all citizens? Or, is she tending to the concept of certain types of citizens. After all she is a female, person of color, into an alternative religion and opposed to the corporate industrial complex. I am confused my friends. What are your thoughts?
For all.
Tulsi -- I am a huge advocate! Would you explain what "For All" means.
It would help those of us on the fence about Tulsi if she would respond to Occidentalist and David Shipley’s comments in her first article: Why I’m Leaving the Democratic Party
https://tulsi.substack.com/p/why-im-leaving-the-democratic-party
Wait, our civil liberties are under attack?
No way!
You’re just noticing this? Really?
I did a lot of work on protecting civil liberties in Congress over the last decade. However, there are a lot of people who haven't been paying attention or are not as informed about how they are being undermined.
What it takes to restore our freedom...
Well; lets start what happened to freedom : we sold it.
To our government.
We.The.People.Sold.Our.Vote.
Government is not unreasonably feeling hurt that we are turning on them after all the money they gave us?
Explain to this veteran why it wouldn’t be sold again.
It certainly would.
As to the rest of them; Freedom’s fine as long as it’s Free.
If it costs, no.
Let them get it, I did my bit, you did yours.
BRAVO! Tulsi....
...Having watched the shenanigans emanating from the House (via CSPAN-I) and the Senate via CSPAN-II) for over 30 years, it becomes crystal clear that the vast MAJORITY of members of the House and Senate have NEVER EVEN READ ANY of the (7) Articles, nor (24) sections - including the (27) Amendments - they all SWEAR to UPHOLD!
One thing you can do to help EXPOSE those in and outside of the US federal government - members of the so-called "NGO" YOU were once a member of - explicitly- the one-world-order zealots within the Council on Foreign Relations who (collectively) are step-by-step destroying the US as a sovereign country - including We (the formerly) sovereign Americans into a totalitarian HELL of (global) "unification" - (to be) ruled by Un elected and Un accountable (LIFETIME) nomenklatura and apparatchik INTERNATIONAL bureaucrats - who WILL RATION (global) food, energy and ALL aspects of 'life' on earth in the name of: SUSTAINABILITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE, EQUITY and ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE into perpetuity - UNLESS a MIRACLE happens that the great mass of human beings JUST SAY NO! ENOUGH of the damn "PLANNERS" - planners who produce NOTHING of value and are mere CONSUMERS of WHAT OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE.
another tool of the elite state -- "investigate until you `find` evidence of a crime" ... completely morally corrupt ... investigation on "suspicion" should never be allowed. our police (and FBI, etc) dollars should not support investigators who do not have bona fide evidence of a crime to follow bak to its source.
Great message! It is always good to listen to what Ron Paul has to say. Thanks.
“Paper money polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in ti, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people.” — Peletiah Webster, 1789
End the Chaos… End the Elastic Standard System… End The FED
Good points. However, I would disagree with the notion of a "right to privacy".
There is no such thing as a "right to privacy" in the Fourth Amendment. This right is an [un]enumerated* right that was read into the Constitution when the Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. I used to agree with this assessment, but I have now come to believe that a "right to privacy" is simply a legal fiction. Human beings are social animals, and, as such, there really isn't anything that we do that can be considered 100% "private" (secluded, excluded, separate, segregated, etc.) from public life.
*Upon re-reading this a day later, I realized that I switched the definitions of an unenumerated and an enumerated right.
I think the 4th Amendment supports a de facto right to privacy in that it prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court has held that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, and therefore in violation of the 4th. Riley v California, 2014. In the absence of both warrantless searches and voluntary display, a spontaneous privacy exists.
You may be right. I’m not a lawyer, just a somewhat educated layman.
I would hold, however, that the “right to privacy” is a legal fiction simply because it’s not possible.
Groovy. We’ll be installing cameras and microphones in your bedroom tomorrow.
I think you’re missing my point.
A “right to privacy” is (I believe to be) a legal fiction. A legal fiction is an assertion that is used by a court to help make legal decisions. For example, the idea of having “separate but equal” institutions for different races (as decided by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896) was a legal fiction.
There is no right to “privacy” explicitly stated in the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court decided that the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to “privacy” in 1965 when they decided Griswold v. Connecticut. When the Court does this, they have established what is called an unenumerated right, i.e., a right not explicitly stated in the Constitution but is inferred by other rights.
My contention is that the “right to privacy” is a legal fiction because human beings are social animals. There is nothing that we do that does not effect another person in some way. This means that individual human interactions combine to create a common culture/society. If an individual were to do something that was deleterious to those combined interactions, then it would be in the interest of society to bring that individual’s (ostensibly private) interactions to the public square.
I get your point, but I don’t to live in a society where I’m not to secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, thanks. My private life is no one’s business as long as I bring no harm to another person. Thanks
Don't misunderstand me. I agree entirely with that sentiment. I want to be able to do what I want and be left alone as well.
The point that I am trying to make is that I don't think that that is possible, whether we like it or not, and, thus, calls to a fictitious "right to privacy" (from a legal perspective) are just one of those euphonious phrases that politicians or other people in the public square use to assert a point regardless of its worth.
On a side note: I don't think privacy (at least in the form that we know it) will exist in the next 10-20 years. So far, I've been arguing against a legal "right to privacy", however, I think the entire idea of privacy will become irrelevant with the advent of AI and other more sophisticated technology.
I don't like to think of the implications of that. I would that it were otherwise, and I hope I'm wrong.
I hope that helps to clear things up!
Sigh. I suspect you are correct. A police surveillance state that will probably be the inevitable result of our technological progress. Also with subsequent generations growing up with cameras in schools, constant online monitoring, etc. they'll never understand the difference. I'm afraid that frog has already begun to boil.
It's become as Jello Biafra said: "Give me convenience or give me death."
So much for liberty.
It certainly doesn't look good.
On the bright side, however, I would like to think that with newer forms of technology will come newer forms of ensuring individual rights.
Far fetched, perhaps, but I don't see any reason why an individual cannot utilize an AI and/or surveillance system in the same way that the state does.
The state will still have an advantage, or course, but it's always been like that, hasn't it?
Clear and scary. I appreciate your thoughts. Curious about your definition of Freedom vs Privacy?
Freedom vs. privacy?
That's a good question. I don't know, precisely. Government is tricky business. If it wasn't, history wouldn't be so bloody.
As far as I can tell, there really isn't any one clear-cut solution that would answer that question. With the advent of new technologies and other innovations, our current form of government becomes stagnant overtime, and is unable to address the issues that we face today.
That, I think, is probably the most innovative idea of the founders of this country: they designed a system of government that can evolve (hence the addition of constitutional amendments/constitutional conventions).
Side note: I think that we're due for a constitutional convention within the next decade or so. I first started saying this a couple days after the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson. Justice Thomas said in that opinion (I'm paraphrasing) that the Supreme Court had done a lot of damage to the country by reading in "rights" to the Constitution instead of having states make their own decisions.
Trapped Democracy
Democracy voted for the free cheese and with guilty mind.
The Demos knew.
!SNAP!
Now Democracy is trapped and must knaw off limbs to survive.
No escape, no survival.
The Demos -people- will want to live, so we’ll see who’s bitten off and who has teeth.
Who’s squeak and who’s Bite.
Perhaps none.
bow hunting.....got muh tags
People so eagerly pronounce the death of our liberties, while you uphold them. The so-called Patriot Act should have failed the test of 5 USC 137 Marbury vs Madison. It is anti-constitutional and should have been overturned on that basis. Unfortunately, many of our contemporaries are so fear-driven that they have self-lobotomized and now they trash the very Constitution that would pre-empt the realization of the most fearsome of human events: dictatorship and then violent civil war.
I am so glad to see you on Substack. Thank you so much for upholding the Constitution.