As the NSA snooping scandal, partially based on information given by Edward Snowden who is hiding out in Hong Kong, grows into something that even people that don't normally care about politics are even paying attention to, the explanation by those that support the government keeping a eye on citizens by all means using modern technology is that each branch of the U.S. Government has signed off on the methods, and that makes them okay, and constitutional.
In response, I ask a very simple question. "What if the three branches of government are colluding together against the citizens of the United States?
The United States Constitution does not indicate that if each branch of government is okay with something, that makes it Constitutional. In fact, that idea is in complete opposition to the original principles of the Constitution. The federal government was not created to control the people, or the States, but to serve the people and States by addressing issues the individual people and States, without the support of a union, would be unable to take care of, otherwise. After all, the Preamble itself tells us that the primary reason for the new government was "in order to form a more perfect Union."
State Sovereignty is an important concept that is addressed throughout the Constitution, and the Constitution was designed to create a central government not to control State Sovereignty, but to promote, protect, and preserve State Sovereignty. The federal government was to be tasked with handling external issues, while the States would continue to address internal issues that influence the populace directly. Therefore, if there are concerns within a State regarding the possible wrongdoing of a person within that State's borders, shouldn't the States be the ones looking into it?
Of course, if there is a terror attack, which is an invasion, and military attack, against a State, the federal government should be called in, with the permission of the State involved, to investigate the situation. After all, the federal government is tasked with the common defense. But should the freedoms of the people be infringed upon just because the federal government states it must promote peace and safety, at any cost?
Our system of government possesses a number of concepts designed to protect the union, while limiting the powers of the federal government. A separation of powers, and a system of checks and balances, are integrated, and you could even say "interwoven", into our governmental system. These concepts are in our system to ensure that the government, which carries with it the potential of tyranny, does not interfere with the individual rights of the States, as well as the fundamental rights of the citizens. Only the legislative branch has the power of legislating, only the courts carry judicial powers, and only the Executive Branch has vested in it executive powers. This "Separation of Powers" was introduced by our Founding Fathers to ensure that the branches of the federal government did not collude together against the States, or the people.
The Legislative Branch carried with it an additional protection against collusion, separating the two Houses in a way that is no longer in place. The House of Representatives was the representation of The People, and the Senate served as the voice of the States. This enabled even the United States Congress to be protected against the two Houses colluding together against the people. The 17th Amendment changed the Senate to be no different than the House of Representatives in the manner of which the representatives are chosen, thus changing the whole dynamics of our system, and destroying the States' ability to oversee the federal government.
Now, we are being told that the three branches of government colluding together, with the media acting as an accomplice, against the States and the individual citizens is completely constitutional because of the collusion.
Wrong.
The Fourth Amendment, which puts into writing the fundamental right of the people not to face unreasonable search and seizure by a powerful central system, with its parts colluding together against the people and the States, was added to the Constitution through the Bill of Rights for a reason. What the federal government is acting upon is a general warrant that is not specific, and holds the entire population guilty, as being a potential suspect that must be monitored, constantly searched, and in the end. . . controlled.
Before the Revolutionary War, the British Empire also issued general warrants that enabled the British soldiers to search and seize without restriction. The American Colonists considered that practice to be a part of the Intolerable Acts, and found such practice to be the actions of a tyranny.
The dangerous implications of today's federal snooping are no different, and whether the branches are all in agreement, or not, the concept of monitoring the actions of American Citizens under a general warrant remains to this day to be unconstitutional. The fact that all of the branches agree with the surveillance choices of the Obama administration makes it even more dangerous, because it also means that the ruling elite has found a way to spit on the concepts of the separation of powers, and checks and balances, and call collusion a constitutional action when in reality, collusion of the branches against the States, and the people, is a breach of the contract called the Constitution, and is a declaration of war against the citizenry of the United States of America.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I'll be sharing this one.
ReplyDelete