Bye Bye Land of the Free

|

And well she might cry.

A terrifically sobering assessment of the encroachments made by our expanding national security state on our civil liberties over the past ten years is outlined in an op/ed by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley in Sunday's Washington Post. Of course, Reason readers are acutely aware of how badly our liberties have been eroded in the name of security, but Turley's op/ed nicely summarizes just what has been lost. From the article: 

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don't operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of "free," but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.

These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.

The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. … (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.) …

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. …

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.) …

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. … Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government's actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence.

Turley concludes:

Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

The whole op/ed is well worth reading and pondering. 


Advertisement

NEXT: Historic Do-Nothing Congress Still Found Time to Propose $1 Trillion in Spending

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But if we’re killed by terrorists or global warming this won’t matter so shut up and get your priorities in line.

    — Team RedBlue

    1. Questions for libertarians on Self-Ownership:

      ? To how many species on the evolutionary Tree of Life* does this Principle apply?

      ? If only one, at what point in biological evolution did “self-ownership” (which I correlate with the more widely used scientific term autonomy**) become “axoimatic” for that specie, and why only for that specie?

      ____________________
      * Evolutionary Genealogy
      The Great Tree of Life
      http://evogeneao.com/tree.html

      ** Life is a complex phenomenon that not only requires individual self-producing and self-sustaining systems but also a historical-collective organization of those individual systems, which brings about characteristic evolutionary dynamics. On these lines, we propose to define universally living beings as autonomous systems with open-ended evolution capacities, and we claim that all such systems must have a semi-permeable active boundary (membrane), an energy transduction apparatus (set of energy currencies) and, at least, two types of functionally interdependent macromolecular components (catalysts and records).

      Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, Juli Peret? and Alvaro Moreno. (2004) “A Universal Definition of Life: Autonomy and Open-Ended Evolution.” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. Volume 34, Number 3, 323-346. http://www.springerlink.com/content/p6j42r66k2277373/

      1. It’s a pity you’re such an ass…otherwise some of your posts might merit discussion.

        1. which is even worse than ass

          1. Thought I felt your nose down there! How’s the “warrior” haircut looking today?

            Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo Woo

      2. The government wants to keep us in a perpetual state of war in order to continue passing legislation with the goal of controlling the population. The only power the government has is to prosecute criminals. They pass laws to guarantee a steady supply.

        1. ^^THIS^^

          You can’t control a populace of law abiding citizens. The only answer for authoritarians is to outlaw virtually everything in one fashion or another.

  2. Dammit. I work nights and now I have to try to sleep after having read this.

    1. Nothing to see here. Isolated incident. Move on. Sleep well.
      (Aside) Release the G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate.

      1. I cannot work because of my sudden lethargy. I have terraforming bills that I cannot pay. Some of my neighbors are getting raped to death. I am the 99.9%.

        1. Miranda! Nice place! (Not.)

  3. Good article, needs one correction though:

    Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framersAnti-Federalists feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

    1. Aaron Burr – American Hero

      1. Alexander Hamiliton – diabolical deadbeat dead at the hands of a hero.

        1. dont let ur mouth pack gunpowder ur flintlock cant shoot

          1. Can I haz cheezburger?

  4. But the founders could not have possibly foreseen that our country would have enemies who wanted to kill us.

    1. Kidding….right?

  5. Babe, today’s consumers want security: freedom is more of a buzzword to them.

  6. The Constitution is supreme law, but unconstitutional legislation is still somehow permitted to apply.

    I especially love how there were no significant outcries when the NDAA was signed/proposed. That’s it. We’re finished.

    1. “general welfare… regulate commerce… necessary and proper”

      Looks like unlimited power to me.

      1. Any legislative provision can be thwarted or ignored if the executive chooses to do so and does not garner opposition.

        Laws are not magic language that can automatically prevent tyranny. They require a freedom-loving people to work. We are not such a people anymore.

        1. Or we’re just fantastical pussies. Most people I meet everywhere I go hate one, two, three, or all of the tyrannical bullshit our governments pass/do. But nobody’s willing to do anything in significant enough numbers for any of it to matter.

          1. *laws/acts

          2. But nobody’s willing to do anything in significant enough numbers for any of it to matter.

            Anyone who does is a domestic terrorist subject to indefinite detention.

            Isn’t that what a terrorist is? Someone who disagrees with the actions of the federal government?

            We’re all terrorists.

          3. Being pussies is definitely a part of the problem.

            The nanny state exists and continues to grow, in large part, because average people have bought into the notion that the natural risks of being alive can be legislated and policed out of existence.

            Call it the “tyranny of good intentions.”

            1. Is it pussification or self preservation when someone doesn’t stand up against people who can kill them and face no consequences?

              1. Perhaps we should do more to glorify people like Irwin Schiff who have dared to stand up to Leviathan.

              2. Failure to face them openly is self-preservation. Failure to plot their downfall in secret is pussification.

        2. I don’t think I want to live on this planet anymore.

          1. …because of the Hell on Earth they’ve created.

          2. Is is the global warming?

          3. Earth, love it or leave it.

        3. And the few who are freedom loving people are labeled as crack pot kooks for just wanting to be LEFT THE FUCK ALONE.

      2. I think that old Washington Times comment is very fitting here:

        “You could solve the world’s energy problems by connecting electrodes to the Founders’ graves.”

        1. That was already solved by attaching electrodes to Alfred Nobel’s corpse.

  7. We can all continue to pretend that we still live in the land of the free so long as we keep our heads in the sand.

    1. are we not gamboling?

      1. WE ARE DEVO…

        1. Zip it, zip it good.

  8. As good a time as any:

    “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.” – Lysander Spooner

    1. Constitutions are worthless, as Chris said above, when there are insufficient numbers of people to uphold/force their governments to uphold them.

      1. Hey, when we read the commerce clause out of the constitution, we never thought things could possibly go wrong. Our bad.

        1. “BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch

          If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” ? , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. ? The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law.”

          – Thomas Jefferson.

          1. Hey now. If anyone ever stands up to judges and hauls them in to explain themselves, they are some kind of Gingrich loving deviant.

      2. I’m taunting you.

    2. And this:

      “In a profound sense, the idea of binding down power with the chains of a written constitution has proved to be a noble experiment that failed. The idea of a strictly limited government has proved to be utopian; some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive
      State.” — Murray Rothbard

      1. I wouldn’t exactly call it a failure. Think about how effective it has been despite the fact that it is just a piece of paper. If you think about the Constitution as juxtaposed against the fact that people generally like to steal and use physical force against one another, it is a resounding success.

        1. It was a brilliant success. But we’re very close to the point–or have passed it already–where it’s become virtually meaningless.

          1. Isn’t it amazing, for example, that Congressmen and the Executive voluntarily step down at the end of their terms? That always shocks me when it happens.

            1. Things keep going the way they are, we might see that in the presidency.

              1. I think that terms are so ingrained that it will (obviously) be the last thing to go.

              2. People, let’s just remember that this whole “two terms” thing isn’t Holy Writ. One of our greatest presidents (he punched Hitler!) served THREE terms, and he wasn’t a dictator.

                Remember these are trying times for Our Great Nation, and we can’t afford to switch horses in mid-race. When things get back to normal, we’ll go back to the two term limit. For now, though, Freedom demands that we keep the President in office!

      2. some other, more radical means must be found to prevent the growth of the aggressive

        A small government dictatorship. Yeah, that will work out well.

        I think there is a lot to be said for having a Constitutional Monarchy. You have a King who generally goes to functions and acts kingly and whose single job is to step up and slap down the elected branches of government when they get out of hand.

        People fundamentally misunderstand who monarchists actually were and what they believed. The didn’t believe in the King as some kind of a tyrant. Quite the opposite. They looked upon the King as the protector of the people against the rapacious elites.

        1. John, threadjack:

          In the other thread, you accused me and others of thinking that everybody thinks as I do or as the reason commentariat does relative to drugs / drug legalization.

          I made the point that the people who live in the bubble on the subject are the type of people who think that the state upping the ante on the drug war live in the bubble.

          Fact: the wod had been an unqualified disaster. Not to see this is consistent with living in a bubble. Since Nixon’s time, the wod has claimed tens of thousands of murders, if not hundreds of thousands of murders, many of which have been commited by cops, DEA scum, etc.

          Fact: Millions have been incarcerted and had their lives ruined. Trillions of dollars have been looted from those who work in the private sector making and producing goods and services upon a voluntary, consensual basis in order that rent seeking scum get the money. It has been a spectacular misallocation of resources. Not to see that is consistent with living in a bubble.

          Of course there are people who do not agree with me or Balko or Ron Paul or countless millions who recognize the sheer stupidity of the wod. They tend to be morons and thieves and statists.

          1. In the other thread, you accused me and others of thinking that everybody thinks as I do or as the reason commentariat does relative to drugs / drug legalization.

            I made the point that the people who live in the bubble on the subject are the type of people who think that the state upping the ante on the drug war live in the bubble.

            THESE AREN’T MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

            You can be clueless about the motivations of the people who are most effected by the drug war (e.g. you live in a bubble) and THEY can also be wrong and/or misled and therefore be accused of ALSO living in a bubble.

            You need to tighten up your thinking and read the words on the screen.

          2. What Reverend Blue Moon said. I am not saying the numerous people I have known who grew up in the ghetto who are radical drug warriors are right. I am just saying they exist. And for that reason it is hardly a sure thing that MLK would object to the drug war if he were alive today. Maybe he would. But he could possibly be just the opposite.

            1. Yes, MLK could be a supporter of the drug war as he did not alwasy think in a consistent, coherent manner.

              That is not the point. You claimed that we live / think in a bubble on this issue. You do not have one iota of fact to support that proposition.

              Rev, most of us here are too painfully familiar with the fact that there are many, many people who favor the wod.

              Logic. John says that we live / think in a bubble. I say prove it. I also point out that those who favor the wod are much more apt to live / think in a bubble than those who know that the wod has been a spectacular failure.

              1. “That is not the point. You claimed that we live / think in a bubble on this issue.”

                You live in a bubble because you think everyone who is affected by the drug war objects to it. They don’t. There are people whose loved ones are in jail for drugs who blame the drugs and the dealers for their loved one’s plight not the drug war. Some of the most radical drug warriors I have ever met were people who had had close family members get involved in the drug trade. You guys seem to deny that such people exist.

                1. Bravo John, you have slain that straw man most eloquently!

              2. Rev, of course, in theory, those who support liberty could live in a bubble in that they do not think that there are others out there who favor the wod and all of its attendant tragedies.

                However, such a theory is inconsistent with reality in that you could never point out such a person exists. Think about it: How could a person be against the wod and not realize that there is a constituency for it – like police departments and federal agencies looking for more money and power and politicians who can tout ther crime fighting efforts and intellectually challenged do gooders and christo-fascists.

                Thus, the proposition that a libertarian lives / thinks in a bubble on this subject is logically flawed.

                Your dog just won’t hunt.

                1. John,

                  PLEASE POINT TO A POST IN WHICH I MADE THE CLAIM THAT SUCH PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST!

                  1. Isn’t that what you said to the Rev just above. It is just a false consciousness argument. Get over it Mike. Some people disagree with you. And they are not nuts or crazy. They just don’t agree with you.

                    1. Get over what?

                      Of course, as I have painstakingly pointed out, there are people who do not agree with ending the wod.

                      If you agree that the wod is a good thing, then, yes, you are nuts.

                    2. If you are unable to locate rational motives for people who want both certain drugs kept illegal and the wod to continue even though they know it will always fail, your brain will simply ‘close the gap’ and create the logic necessry to explain how this paradox might exist.

                      They are nuts, is a poor attempt at ‘closing the gap.

                    3. Mike, who is doing the aggressing here?

                      Mollycoddling the irrational is one sure way to never close the gap of which you post.

  9. Frum, Hannity & the rest of the Neocons think it STILL isn’t enough.

    And Team Blue has a whole stack of intrusions of their own – environmental regulations, “Redevelopment” Agencies – that are eating away civil liberties from the other direction.

  10. The only amazing thing is that this was published in the Washington Post. Wow.

    Of course, Turley’s analysis doesn’t include the myriad ways that the nanny state (at all govt. levels) has reduced freedom in the USA. For the most part, the nanny state intrudes on the freedom of the average citizen far more than the War on Terror does.

    Knowing the Post, they probably wouldn’t have published his column if he’d written about that.

    1. Definitely agree. While the laws concerning the WoT are worrisome, it’s all the 4500 federal laws, tons more state laws, where we can unknowingly commit ~3 felonies a day is what I’m more worried about.

      ..although the WoT laws can also be used to expand or facilitate those otherwise unrelated laws.

  11. Rendition, and the rest of that stuff, are unquestionably important, but what does it mean when he doesn’t even bother to mention the casual contempt for citizens’ basic freedoms exhibited by the police on a daily basis?

    Random stop/interrogate/search fishing expeditions are apparently no big deal.

    1. Random stop/interrogate/search fishing expeditions are apparently no big deal.

      Not only are they no big deal, my understanding is that they can be extremely popular, like the ‘stop and frisk’ program in NYC.

      As long as the infringement is happening to someone else, most people will sign away a lot of liberty in exchange for the promise of increased security.

  12. “Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals — that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government — that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.”
    -Ayn Rand

    1. The Constitution CREATES and ESTABLISHES WHICH POWERS the federal government is delegated. Apparently, once it’s been created, it’s okay for it to ignore the supreme charter that made it and describes the only powers it is to have.

      1. This is what happens when the judicial branch defends legislation against people who read the Constitution, instead of the other way around.

        1. “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. ? I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm ? ? Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820″

          – Thomas Jefferson

    2. Ayn was objectively wrong in that statement.

      1. Explain.

        1. “Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals…”

          The only component of the Constitution that acts as a limitation on the federal government is the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights was a back-up concocted by nervous sectors of the Founding delegations. Otherwise, she’s wrong, because the concept of American republicanism is based upon the idea that the people establish a government through the creation and ratification of a charter for that government, a charter that explicitly outlines what powers that government is to have. In other words, the document births that government, legitimizes it, and says what powers it is to have, and anything that is not mentioned must not and may not be touched by it.

          “… that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government…”

          Again, only as a secondary measure in the form of the Bill of Rights.

          “… that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.”

          It’s precisely that — a charter for government power, outlining the ONLY power it can have/has. The Bill of Rights was an additional precaution.

          1. In other words, you don’t need to list limitations, because it can’t do anything that isn’t listed and expressly granted to it (the government).

            1. Read Rand’s quote again and tell me how she is wrong. The Bill of Rights, last I checked, is in the Constitution, despite the fact you think it unnecessary. Further, the procedural checks and balances in place were designed to constrain the government, so from a political philosophy viewpoint, she is absolutely correct.

              1. I don’t think you got my point. Checks and balances and the Bill of Rights are limitations on government, but if we actually lived by the principles behind the very idea of a constitutional republicanism, we wouldn’t need it. Do you understand what I’m saying?

                1. Because government can only do what the supreme charter establishing and legitimizing it says it can do. But additional precautions and checks and balances make it even better by acting as safeguards. I’m sorry if I muddled the wording.

                  1. I don’t think we’re disagreeing, and I would hazard that Rand wouldn’t disagree either. Rather than being a charter that protects rights, she should have said that it is a charter designed to protect rights.

                    1. Yeah, stemming from a principle of establishing and running government in a way designed to protect rights. I mean, it’s probably context. I don’t think Rand would have made such a mistake.

                    2. Would you classify that as a design failure or a launch failure?

          2. I think a discussion of the context of the quote would be helpful here.

            If I recognize the text, I believe it arises from a discussion of the fact that many people tend to falsely believe that private individuals have to recognize enumerated rights – e.g. your employer has to recognize your right to free speech.

            I think that the general statement that the Constitution is there to limit the state, and not private individuals, is quite apt in that context.

            1. The context gets a little more fun and problematic because, IIRC, it was Rand going on a crotchety and beautiful rant about the Berkeley protesters, who said that their violent demonstrations were free speech.

  13. The test of character is not when times are good but when they turn bad. The plane attacks did show that Americans did not value their freedom very much, to be fair there is no other country that would not do the same though.

    1. Complacency, apathy, historical ignorance. It’s easy to forget what makes you free when the only life you know is a life of well-being and leisure.

      1. Actually the reason society fails to protect freedom as much as many here believe is necessary, is basic human nature.

        For a variety of very good, rational reasons, humans are good at learning and good at forgetting.

        & the further away in time we get from our founding, the more difficult it becomes to retain the values necessary to create the very freedom we have been bequeathed.

  14. Wow, I never in a million years would have figured that out. Wow.

    http://www.anon-vpn.tk

  15. The only thing that shocks me is that it took 10 years to fall this far. I would have guessed 4 or fewer.

    1. How many attacks on U.S. soil have there been, post 9/11? Maybe the shit head at Fort Hood and the Times Square guy? Nothing that I would call ‘organized’.

      With an organized campaign of bombing and other domestic terror in this country, I’ll be amazed if our current liberties last 10 minutes after the attacks start, never mind 10 years.

      1. Many of the liberty sucking measures that have been enacted since 9/11 weren’t because of attacks, but FAILED ones.

        We are a country of pant pissers.

        Had we an ACTUAL attack, we’d all be in chains by now.

  16. ChrisO is right.

    We have lost a lot of “civil” liberty in the procedural sense, as is outlined here.

    But leaving completely aside due process issues like these, we aren’t the Land of the Free in the petty and mundane sense any more, either. The behavior of the individual citizen is utterly circumscribed and dominated BDSM style by the state in every area of life outside of certain well-protected (thank god) 1st Amendment areas.

    You quite literally can’t take a shit in 2012 without the hand of the state micromanaging the size of your toilet.

    1. This is exactly right. It is not rendition of a few terrorists or the detention of the unlucky guy who went to Pakistan last year that is the threat. Every society has had bouts of this sort of thing. It tends to ebb and flow over the year. But the utter control of people in the name of the general good, controlling everything to how much water their toilet has in it to how they sort their garbage is a much greater threat. It affects everyone’s life. And does so in so many ways that ending it is virtually impossible short of a complete governmental breakdown.

      1. It also helps when most of the people you’re oppressing would never even consider resisting arrest, let alone taking up arms against tyrannical governments. Pussification, eh?

        1. That is why it is so sinister. It is not one oppressive law or one big thing. It is a million things. DO you really want to die over your right to have a light bulb? Most would say no. And thus one seemingly insignificant law at a time we are all tied down like Gulliver.

  17. Since 9/11 FDR, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

    Lets give credit for killing the idea that we have a government of limited enumerated powers where credit is due.

    1. Since 9/11 FDR the Alien and Sedition Acts , we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

      ftfy

      1. So to what do you attribute America’s resounding wealth and success as a nation? I think the philosophy of limited government is what did it, and saying that limited government died in the 1790s makes no sense.

        1. The forces of unlimited government went to work before the ink was dry on the Constitution.

          Heck, the Bill of Rights set forth the idea that the federal government can do anything unless there is an Amendment saying it can’t.

          Unlimited government was the idea from the very beginning.

          1. If I agreed to that, then I would once again have to ask: to what do you attribute America’s fantastic wealth and status?

            You’re wildly overstating the case. If America was always an Totalitarian Hellhole, we would be much poorer. You’re basically saying there is no difference between America circa 1790 and North Korea today. Does that sound right to you?

            1. The government started off limited, but only by default.

              With no effective mechanism for the repeal of shitty legislation and regulation, the logical conclusion of fixing bad rules with more bad rules is a totalitarian state.

              1. The Anti-Federalists should have added one more Amendment to the Bill of Rights: an automatic sunset clause on every piece of legislation signed into law by the president.

          2. Heck, the Bill of Rights set forth the idea that the federal government can do anything unless there is an Amendment saying it can’t.
            —-

            No.

            https://reason.com/blog/2012/01…..nt_2768409

            1. its not supposed to, but thats how it has effectively been interpretted. The onyl things the courts ever strike down now are things that violate parts of the bill of rights (and even that is only some times). When was the last time SCOTUS struck down something on grounds that it wasnt an annumerated power?

              1. What # said.

                1. Oh, the fact that it’s been wrongly interpreted and that that’s the way, de facto, that it is in the world of today is clear, of course. I agree.

              2. Yeah. We’re in a nice little mess. Constitutional republicanism, how the fuck does it work?

                1. Apparently it doesn’t.

              3. … that’s when.

          3. The forces of unlimited government went to work before the ink was dry on the Constitution.

            Yeah, but they didn’t really break the back of the Constitutional limitations on the government until FDR.

            1. “”Yeah, but they didn’t really break the back of the Constitutional limitations on the government until FDR.”

              What about Me?

              1. You actually planned to give up your war powers? Fucking amateur.

          4. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” seems contrary to your assertion that ”the Bill of Rights set forth the idea that the federal government can do anything unless there is an Amendment saying it can’t.”

            1. When they said “power” they meant just that “power” as in “regulatory power”. The 10th Amendment kills the regulatory state. But it doesn’t do as much as people like to pretend.

              1. Nice one.

              2. So when it says “The Congress shall have Power To…”, for example, were they just talking about regulatory powers?

                1. Mohawk — he’s blowing smoke out of his ass. I don’t get why John has these bouts.

                  1. You just don’t like reality RPA. There have been cases where federal power has been limited. It is called the police power. That is what the Amendment meant at the time. It was never intended to wipe out the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses. It was meant to restrict the federal police and regulatory power. Things like the EPA are unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment or it least the founders intended them to be. But they did not intend the 10th Amendment to be a return to Articles of Confederation where the government can’t do anything, which is what you guys think it is.

                    You are no better than the liberals who pretend the 10th Amendment doesn’t exist. You pretend the general welfare and necessary and proper clauses don’t exist. Both sides read the Constitution to mean what they would like it to say not what it does say.

                    1. So, “The Congress shall have Power To…” uses one definition of “power” but “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…” uses a different definition of “power?” You know this how?

                      In the absence of a published glossary or footnotes in the Constitution to the contrary, it seems much more reasonable that the body of the Constitution enumerated the “powers” of the federal government and the 10th, using the same word, was referencing these enumerated powers when it used the word “powers.” Tell me why the use of the word “powers” in the 10th isn’t defined the same way as the word “powers” in the body.

                    2. Because the word “powers” in the body has a big whole in it called the necessary and proper clause. You are reading out that clause because you don’t like it. Sorry but it is still there. And nothing in the 10th Amendment removed it.

                    3. No, I’m not. Perhaps you should should projecting.

                      “Necessary and proper” refers to “the foregoing Powers.” For example, one of the enumerated powers is the power “To coin Money.” A law “necessary and proper” to carrying into execution said power could be a law respecting the creation of a mint, for example. There’s no enumerated power to create a mint but it might be handy to have one in order to coin money.

                      Nothing about “necessary and proper” means “powers” means one thing in the body and a wholly different thing in the 10th Amendment, outside of your fevered imagination.

                    4. Both sides read the Constitution to mean what they would like it to say not what it does say.

                      I’m going to go ahead and presume that what you really mean here is that it is Conservatives, as opposed to liberal or libertarians, who are the true arbiters.

            2. When have you heard of federal legislation being struck down on 10th Amendment grounds?

              It’s usually the 1st or 2nd because those say what the federal government cannot do.
              I’ve never heard of anything being struck down because it wasn’t enumerated.
              Have you?

              1. Famously, U.S. v. Morrison and U.S. v. Lopez (the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free Schools Act) were both struck down as infringing on the states police power.

                1. And Obama signed legislation lifting restriction on carrying guns in national parks and has proposed abolishing federal agencies. Great.

                  Adding a few drops of water to an ocean of hydrofluoric acid doesn’t make it any less toxic.

              2. “When have you heard of federal legislation being struck down on 10th Amendment grounds?”

                The Bill of Rights also says “Congress shall make no law…” and then Congress makes laws which were proscribed and they are not struck down. That federal judges are mendacious fucks doesn’t mean the Bill of Rights says what you say it says.

        2. though not perfect, i think the country stuck roughly to constitutional form until the 1930s. There was a reason afterall why the original progressives all had to pass constitutional amendments in the early 1900s. At that time there was still a solid respect for the constitution.

          1. Isn’t it amazing that only a century ago, Presidents were shitting their pants in semi-delirium every time they contemplated something despotic? Look at even Woodrow fucking Wilson’s apprehensions. Boy, would they LOVE the world of today!

            1. When the majority of the children are indoctrinated in government schools that government is God, of course you’re going to have a nation of people who celebrate despotism.

              1. in contrasting my private and public school experience, i was certainly not taught that govt. was god, or anything close to that in public schools, HOWEVER, it was the private schools that were much more comprehensive in their critique of govt, offering of alternative theories, etc. – i went to both quaker, and episcopalian private schools.

                1. I don’t mean that literally of course, but public schools do teach that in all questions of life government is the answer.
                  They teach children that they can trust the police *snort*, that their representatives have their best interest in mind *snort*, that FDR saved the world *snort*, etc.

                  Government might as well be God.

                  1. This is true. As an example, the industrial revolution was always depicted as this place of evil capitalists and grueling poverty for everyone else only to be saved by unions, TR and FRD.

                    They forget to mention that yeah it sucks by todays standards, but it was a giant improvment over subsidance farming of earlier years. My history teacher was not too happy when i brought an article in one day explaining how the average wage of a labororer over doubled between 1800 and 1900.

                    1. Don’t forget either the lovely contrast in pictures contained in our Gov’t school history books. How many pics of dirty street kids did you see? Contrast that with the number of farm accidents, malaria patients, farm foreclosure, etc pictures contained in those books.

      2. It was around the time of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency that our original principle of governance became ineffectual. Before then, shit like the Alien and Sedition Acts were opposed with extreme militancy, and tyranny couldn’t make its ultimate move. FDR made the ultimate jump and fucked us all in the ass, and here we are today, subjects whose remnant, partial freedom is conditional upon compliance with what even several Roman emperors would view as tyranny. How fucking disgusting.

        1. It was Lincoln who paved the way by destroying any concept of state sovereignty.

          1. And I suppose Southerners who abused states rights to commit the worst crime in all of American history and did their best to spread that crime to the entire nation bear no responsibility for the actions taken to end their crime?

            1. Lincoln’s actions were not taken to end their crime, unless by crime you mean leaving the Union.

              1. Who cares why they were taken. His actions were necessary to end their crime. If he did it for other reasons, that is Lincoln’s business. The fact is the country faced a choice, live with slavery or give up states’ rights. And that horrible dilemma existed because the South had slaves.

                If you want to blame anyone for the death of limited government, blame the racist south. They killed it first with slavery and later with Jim Crow. If the South hadn’t been such assholes, there wouldn’t have been any need or reason to kill the commerce clause with the civil rights act would there?

                1. Who cares why they were taken.

                  Because to say Lincoln invaded the South to end slavery is false, and if you know it to be false but say it anyway it makes you a liar.

                  That’s why.

                2. The fact is the country faced a choice, live with slavery or give up states’ rights OR let the south go and outlaw slavery. You’re welcome. That option is always forgotten somehow.

                  1. That option is always forgotten somehow.

                    Of course it is.
                    If not then there’s no possible justification for the death and destruction caused by Lincoln’s invasion of the South.
                    No justification at all.
                    It must be told that it was all about slavery, not about federal power.
                    To do otherwise is to expose Lincoln for the tyrant that he was.

                    1. The justification is keeping the union together and saving the blacks in the South. The blacks in the South were US citizens. Even if the South had a right to leave the union, they had no right to hold 1/3rd of its population in bondage while doing so. The slaves sure as hell didn’t want succession. And they would have left the South and gone to North to freedom had they been allowed.

                      Since when did states get the right to leave the union and prevent US citizens from returning to those states who remained?

                    2. It is amazing how callus you people are towards slaves and slavery. Can you really act surprised when liberals accuse you of being racist? I don’t think you are. But you make the charge awfully easy by arguing stupid and callous shit about slavery.

                    3. The justification is keeping the union together and saving the blacks in the South.

                      When the decision to invade was made, slavery was not a consideration.

                      If the South had left the Union because they thought Northerners spoke funny, Lincoln still would have invaded.

                      It was all about power.

                    4. When the decision to invade was made, slavery was not a consideration.

                      How about the fact that the South had committed multiple acts of war even prior to the casus belli of Fort Sumter?

                      Compact theory is the only theory that pro-secessionists have, and reasonable people can disagree. The stone-cold fact is the South wanted to secede so it could keep slavery, and that is not a valid rationale. Furthermore, in participating in the 1860 election, the Southern States implicitly agreed to abide by the outcome of that election, and it therefore broke its implied-in-fact promise in the constitutional compact.

                    5. RBM – I just get sick of people hailing Lincoln as some hero who set out on a mission to free the slaves. That is just plain false.

                    6. Just pointing out though that the Civil War was not necessarily all about power. If you read the statements at the time, all of the discussion was couched in very legalistic arguments about the Constitution.

                    7. Furthermore, in participating in the 1860 election, the Southern States implicitly agreed to abide by the outcome of that election, and it therefore broke its implied-in-fact promise in the constitutional compact.

                      So if I take part in an election and vote 3rd party because the duopoly has become Leviathan, I am implicitly agreeing to abide by the outcome?

                      Bullshit.

                    8. When the decision to invade was made, slavery was not a consideration.

                      So what? So they did the right thing for the wrong reasons. It was still the right thing to do. The South had no right to leave the union and keep US citizens in bondage and prevent them from returning to the US.

                    9. So what?

                      So repeating that slavery was the reason the South was invaded when you know that it was not makes you a fucking liar.

                    10. John, there is a really good legal case to be made that the Civil War was justified. What you are doing, however, is not that. I want to agree with you, but you’re being a gigantic douche right now.

                    11. I know there is RBM. And I have made it on here numerous times. I get tired of making the same arguments all the time. And I had never thought of the idea of the slaves being citizens. They were. And the South had no right to carry them away from the Union. I kind of think it is a novel idea of looking at the issue.

                    12. Calm down there Johnny boy. I’m not afraid of anyone calling me anything.
                      To be frank, the only moral thing a White man of that time could do would be to either aid the underground rail road or raise a private army to start a slave rebellion.
                      Those things weren’t going to fix the problem. The former would have been insufficient, the latter both suicidal and likely counter-productive.
                      I (for one) did not say that letting the south go about their slaving ways would have been preferable. I just find it moronic to claim we only had two options, when we clearly had more. In fact, States rights could have been respected, even after the war. I personally feel that they MAY have, if Lincoln had not be assassinated.
                      In addition, you must face that State sovereignty was tragically lost during that war, regardless of any fairy-tale good intentions riding behind the cannons and muskets. Without that war, national prohibition would have been impossible, the 17th amendment would never have been ratified, and modern commerce clause jurisprudence would be a laughable notion.

                    13. Had there not been slavery, there never would have been that war. The war and the succession that caused it was entirely the South’s fault. No one told them they had to leave. And no where did they have the right to make war on the Union or keep US citizens in slavery and prevent them from returning to the US.

                      If California left the union but then said “these US citizens cannot return to the US and must remain in California”, do you not think that the US would have a right to invade and free those citizens? I do.

              2. Lincoln’s actions were not taken to end their crime, unless by crime you mean leaving the Union.

                This assumes the “fuck you, we quit and by the way, we’re taking every piece of federal property on our side of the line without even just compensation” school of secession makes sense.

          2. It was Lincoln who paved the way by destroying any concept of state sovereignty.

            Hyperbole sighted! Captain, should we take evasive action?

  18. This is a bit of hyperventilating. When exactly was America the “land of the free” by this definition, i.e. some sort of libertarian paradise? Presumably not before the Civil War, when slavery was legal. And not before 1973, when the draft was in place. And probably not since 1937, when marijuana was outlawed, presumably unconstitutionally. There are always outrages, though this century’s seem quite a bit less severe than the previous ones’.

    1. as the country has aged the classes of people who have been able to enjoy the sets of freedoms available at that time have broadened (starting with only white men to most everyone now). So yes a black person is more free now than one would be in 1850.

      However, for whoever could fit into that relatively free class over history, has become less free as time has moved on. So a “free” person in 1850 was more free than a “free” person today.

      1. No way – they could still be drafted at any time. Apparently, according to this blog post, one of the major freedoms they could have enjoyed then but not now is the ability to move to another country and collaborate with one of America’s enemies without threat of the U.S. government assassinating them.

        1. And why are these good reasons to live without economic and personal liberties lost since the New Deal?
          I fail to see how granting rights to a new set of people necessitates the retraction of rights recognized for another, already-free group of citizens.

          1. To progressives, the answer to all of their questions is not to elevate those lower to the level of those higher, but to bring down those higher to the same level as those lower.

            It’s the only way their bullshit can work, because there are no such things as unicorns.

        2. They can still be drafted now. The government still claims that power.

  19. while this article does a good job at pointing out some of the most egregious violations of civil liberties and encroachments on freedom, most of the above only apply to an incredibl tiny %age of the population. so, while they are the worst, one’s chance of falling prey to them is extremely small

    on the local front, imo, some of the excesses in the war on domestic violence “hit home” literally hundreds if not thousands of times more often, and practically anybody , including the completely innocent could very well fall prey to them

    it always amazes me the way the media ignores them – the erosion of the right to confront witnesses against oneself, the erosion of the rights of due process, the RKBA pursuant to DV protection orders (issued under the flimsiest of evidence), the right to free association (judges routinely issuing no contact orders against BOTH party’s wishes, etc.)

    i can admit that i SEE these far more often (obviously), so they are more apparent to me as a problem, but again, it just amazes me the way they are nearly completely ignored by both the mainstream media, and places like reason.com

    right to confront witnesses, free association, RKBA, due process… that’s important stuff

    1. most of the above only apply to an incredibl tiny %age of the population.

      That’s how it always looks at the top of the slippery slope.

      1. It’s visible now because we’ve been asked to put on paper clear-cut rules covering a gray area that has existed for quite a long time. If, in World War II, we captured a German soldier with dual German-American citizenship, my understanding of official policy was to treat him as if he was any other German soldier… held as a PoW until hostilities ceased. At the time, this wasn’t an issue (I know we had enough other civil-liberties issues with things the US government did at the time). As hostile groups have pushed closer to the boundaries between warfare and crime, the number of cases that raise legal and ethical questions is bound to increase, and these gray-area cases are not always easy.

        For me, the hard point is drawing the line between war and crime in such a way as to have the least gray-area cases, but I know it is impossible to eliminate all gray-area cases.

    2. Yes, it’s not been mentioned by Reason AFAIK. I’ve had some secondary experience with WoDV and I can see how it could be a pretty big erosion of civil liberties. It’s pretty far under the radar right now.

      1. yup.

        i’d like to see reason on the vanguard here. people have been wanking about federal excess etc. WOTerra etc. for a long time

        it’s been done.

        i have YET to see even 1/20 the exposure of the vast incursions into liberties and rights we see from the war on DV.

        and again, one’s chance of falling prey to excesses of the latter war are orders of magnitude more common.

        that’s what’s so amazing

        we can all agree, for example, that detention w/o due process of american citizens, even on our own soil, or execution of “terrorism” suspects is wrong.

        and reason has done a metric assload of articles on it.

        and the # of americans who have fallen prey to these gross policies can be measured with the fingers of the hand and toes

        there are literally thousands, if not scores of thousands who have fallen prey to excesses of the war on dv.

        and not a PEEP about it on reason.

        if you have a family member, a roommate, a girlfriend, boyfriend, etc. — guess what — you could be a victim of the WODV.

        the impact is far far far far far greater, even if it MAY not have the same constitutional implications and journalistic sexiness

        how many hundreds if not thousands of articles are written on WOTerra excesses for every one written about woDV excesses?

        let’s see reason be a LEADER, not a follower

      2. yup.

        i’d like to see reason on the vanguard here. people have been wanking about federal excess etc. WOTerra etc. for a long time

        it’s been done.

        i have YET to see even 1/20 the exposure of the vast incursions into liberties and rights we see from the war on DV.

        and again, one’s chance of falling prey to excesses of the latter war are orders of magnitude more common.

        that’s what’s so amazing

        we can all agree, for example, that detention w/o due process of american citizens, even on our own soil, or execution of “terrorism” suspects is wrong.

        and reason has done a metric assload of articles on it.

        and the # of americans who have fallen prey to these gross policies can be measured with the fingers of the hand and toes

        there are literally thousands, if not scores of thousands who have fallen prey to excesses of the war on dv.

        and not a PEEP about it on reason.

        if you have a family member, a roommate, a girlfriend, boyfriend, etc. — guess what — you could be a victim of the WODV.

        the impact is far far far far far greater, even if it MAY not have the same constitutional implications and journalistic sexiness

        how many hundreds if not thousands of articles are written on WOTerra excesses for every one written about woDV excesses?

        let’s see reason be a LEADER, not a follower

  20. I am so on a list somewhere for this:

    The history of the present [government] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For transporting us [and others] beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

    Assassinate or jail in an offshore prison for indefinite detention, American citizens with secret evidence.

    The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal

    Taking our land and giving it to private interests

    Forcing us into commerce against our wishes

    Preventing the people from using the illumination or toilet of their choosing in their own home.

    Prevents the recording of public actions of public officials

    Declares secret without oversight, information of import to the citizenry

    Restricts or bans the growing of plants for food and medicine.

    Arrest and convict a person of selling glass in a proscribed manner

    Subjects travelers on private transport to unreasonable, invasive and humiliating searches.

    Taxes the citizens of the States, and then requires the States to pass Laws as condition for the return of the funds

    Illegitimately imposes upon personal arms the police power of the state

    Incurs debt that the citizenry is unable to repay

    Debauches the currency on a daily basis

    Orders U.S. Military Forces into offensive actions without the approval of Congress.

    Institutes so many regulations and laws that it is impossible for a mortal to live a day without violating at least one if not a multiple of them.

    Uses the unlawful ownership of the airways to restrict speech.

    Takes the property of those not convicted but merely suspected of a crime.

    Enforces laws of other countries on US citizens engaged in peaceful commerce.

    May appoint anyone he wants to any appointed position he wants in the Executive branch, at anytime it pleases him to do so

    Does not protect the U.S. Constitution but at every turn tries to circumvent it.

    1. God forgive us for eviscerating our inheritance.

  21. While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers

    This is an apt description noming what we cannot may not know

  22. btw, as a contrast to the clearly (imnsho) excessive force used during the takedown of the gentleman in florida based on noncompliance, compare with THIS incident, which imo is textbook and a near perfect UOF.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..brTyP06-yM

    seriously, i love this guy. GREAT tactics, … good verbalization, and when he needed to move – explosive, dynamic, forceful, and no muss no fuss…

    in brief, THAT’s how you do it.

    1. That nigger should go to jail for a long, long time for assault with the intent to do great bodily harm.

      A peace officer does not assualt another upon the basis of failure to comply.

      In a free society, no special rules for cops. The rule of law does not countenance special rules for the king’s men.

      If the guy had retaliated, he would have been justified in killing that black bastard.

      1. That nigger should go to jail for a long, long time for assault with the intent to do great bodily harm.

        Seriously what the fuck is the matter with you?

        1. MLK day sets him off?
          …or it could be he is still looking for yesterday’s morning links

          1. Hey Rev, did you see what he did?

            You forget, a free person is not chained down by politically correct tyrants.

            What that guy did was savage. No excuses.

      2. Libertymike,

        You are scum. I know I speak for the vast majority of the commenters here in stating that your comments are completely out of line, disrespectful, and do not represent the attitudes of said majority.

        Seriously, take your racist bullshit elsewhere asshole.

        1. Please, do not try and force your politically correct dogma upon me.

          The guy assualted the redhead and attempted to kill him. Anybody who does that under the color of law can not be heard to complain about one particular name he is being called.

          The guy is a cop; thus he is a parasite. He tries to kill a person just because the “civilian” does not comply.

          He is a nigger.

            1. Let’s ban Huck Finn.

              There are people who support banning books like Hucleberry Finn because of Clements’ propensity to use the word nigger.

              Liberty demands that there are no words that are off limits – even if a word is offenseive to those who are group think fascists.

              1. Huck Finn’s use of the word “nigger” makes sense in a literary context. See also William Faulkner.

                Your use of the word was you trying to be an edgy asshole, and you succeeded as to the latter description.

          1. Geez, I must have offended Tman’s sensibilities.

            This is a libertarian forum. As such, we do not need politically correct whiners who are offended by the use of the word nigger.

            Get over yourself.

            1. This is a libertarian forum. As such, we do not need politically correct whiners who are offended by the use of the word nigger.

              Libertarianism is a political ideology. Nothing more, nothing less.

              I bet $5,000 you never called a white cop a “honky” or a Middle Eastern cop a “sand nigger”. I bet I can guess why too.

              1. Pay up.

          2. Please, do not try and force your politically correct dogma upon me

            You think you are subversive for using the word nigger? What a load of horseshit. You know perfectly well the way you’re using it is derogatory and racist. Stop pretending your some liberty rebel.

            The guy assualted the redhead and attempted to kill him.

            He did not attempt to kill anyone. We can argue the merits of whether or not the actions were justified, but he wasn’t trying to kill him and the perp would NOT “have been justified in killing that black bastard.”

            The guy is a cop; thus he is a parasite. He tries to kill a person just because the “civilian” does not comply.

            He wasn’t trying to kill him. He was trying to get a drunk 22 year old off the streets before he caused more damage. The kid was fine.

            It’s YOU who obviously has a problem with black people in uniform.

            1. No person is subversive for using any word. Your attribution fails.

              Stop pretending that you are somehow noble for condemning the use of the word nigger. It is not noble nor is it consistent with liberty.

              The kid was not threatening the cop nor had he assaulted the cop.

              I have a problem with any person in uniform.

              1. I have a problem with any person in uniform.

                I have yet to figure out what is so fucking noble about seeking out a job where you wield deadly force for the benefit of the lowliest scum of the earth – politicians.

                1. probably because using deadly force is a tiny part of our job and is not what makes it noble.

                  also, the vast majority of the time, we use deadly force, it is to protect ourselves, our brother officers, or other innocents, not politicians.

              2. LM,

                Stop pretending that you are somehow noble for condemning the use of the word nigger.

                I’m not attempting to be noble, I’m telling you that you are a racist fuckstick who should go back to LewRockwell or Stormfront where you wouldn’t have to worry about people calling you out as being a racist fuckstick.

                It’s not the word itself, it’s the way you used it. Not to mention the idea that you said it’s “have been justified in killing that black bastard.”

                His race has nothing to do with what you have a problem with (police force being inappropriately used) but you are injecting it in to the discussion because you are a racist fuckstick.

                Go back to beating off with your confederate flag.

                1. Tman, we do not know wheter race has anything to do with the situation, your conclusory statements notwithstanding.

                  The cop viciously assaulted a white person. Perhaps the cop has some racial beefs. He certainly woudl not be the first.

                  There certainly was no reason for the cop to attack the kid. NONE.

                  Given reality, the chances are pretty good that this guy was an affirmative action hiree. In fact, if you are black, and you work for the state, chances are very good that you are an affirmative action hiree.

                  Sure, we do not know whether, in fact, this particular black cop was an affirmative action hiree. But, experience and common sense dictate that the question is a legitimate one.

                  Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell and Murrary Rothbard have done a whole lot more than Reason to advance liberty. One of the reasons why is that the former have been unwilling to genuflect at the altar of politically correct speech codes.

                  Confederate flag? I see you are trotting out the Southern Poverty Law Center style of debate / speech. If one properly recognizes that Dishonest Abe was a mass murderting misanthrope, one must be a neo-confederate. People who think that way have been and continue to be enemies of liberty.

                  1. we do not know wheter race has anything to do with the situation, your conclusory statements notwithstanding

                    THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU INTRODUCE IT TO THE CONVERSATION?

                    The cop viciously assaulted a white person. Perhaps the cop has some racial beefs. He certainly woudl not be the first.

                    So now it is racist? You are really fucking bad at debating LM.

                    There certainly was no reason for the cop to attack the kid. NONE.

                    Except for the fact that other citizens called the police to come stop this guy from trashing their restaurant. Was the use of force excessive? Maybe it was, but either way HIS RACE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION YOU STUPID RACIST ASSHOLE.

                    The confederate flag part was an insult that I’m glad got your panties in bunch.

              3. The actions are the problem. Your choice to use an incendiary word in a race-baiting fashion makes you a complete and total asshole.

                You talk about “groupthink” – when Tony or some other statist goofball comes on here and we drop ten pounds of grief on their heads, collectively, that’s us, as a group, stating our opinions forcefully.

                Tman and I are stating our opinions, forcefully, that your use of the word “nigger” was not only unnecessary and completely ridiculous in context, but it also, combined with your other behavior, confirms what we suspected: that you’re a racist prick.

                1. How could the word be “completely ridiculous in context” when you have a black man with a gun and a badge, assaulting a white man without any provocation?

                  Its okay to use the word nigger in a free society. Its more than okay to use the word nigger to describe one who desired to be part of the praetorian guard and gained admission to such at least in part upon the basis of his skin color.

                  1. Did you see the kid trashing a restaurant?

                    1. the cop didn;’t arrest him for trashing the restaurant (i am assuming) . he had at least reasonable suspicion to investigate the kid AS the suspect in that case (which would include getting store personnel to ID him).

                      the kid refused to comply with the simple lawful demand, given 4 times (at least) to take his hands out of the pocket. he then got arrested

                      he created his own arrest. his fault

                      the takedown was brilliant

                  2. How could the word be “completely ridiculous in context” when you have a black man with a gun and a badge, assaulting a white man without any provocation?

                    I don’t know whether you have a serious developmental disease or if you are just a willfully ignorant inflammatory little fucker, but either way, this conversation is not worth having.

                    So I’ll speak to the visitors to this page:

                    Nobody here in anyway endorses Libertymike’s race-baiting trolldom. Please do not take this brain-dead mouth-breather as representative of anybody else on this board.

                    1. I will second the Reverends comment.

                      And also second his idea that LM doesn’t it get why he’s being racist, thus why the conversation is not one worth having.

                    2. Note to the visitors to this page:

                      The posts of Rev. Blue Moon and Tman are no way representative of those who seek to advance the cause of liberty.

                      You will note that they did not condemn the actions of the cro-magnon in uniform. Instead, they chose to brandish their Wiegalian politically correct speech code bona fides.

                      To them, it is far more impartant to be liked by supporters of mass murder and the wod and the state’s nomenklatura than it is to true friends of liberty.

                    3. To them, it is far more impartant to be liked by supporters of mass murder and the wod and the state’s nomenklatura than it is to true friends of liberty.

                      Calling you a racist fuckstick in no way means that I “want to be liked” by statist, you dumb motherfucker. Once again, THESE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. I can condemn the police officer AND condemn you for being such a retard.

                    4. Yes, a person who is not immediately repulsed by the vicious actions of that troglodyte and instead focuses upon an adjective used by another in condemning the violent tax feeder, is evidence in support of my proposition.

                      What the cop did is not defensible. There can be no debate about that. Only if one supports the notion that police officers have the right to use AGRESSION upon another for failure to comply can there be any debate.

                      Thus, true friends of liberty do not contest whether the cop had any right to aggress the unarmed kid. If you consider yourself a true friend of liberty, you can not, in any way, defend or justify what the cop did.

                      True friends of liberty justifiably call cops parasites as they do not make or produce anything upon a voluntary, consensual basis.

                      True friends of liberty justifiably note that people who are attracted to positions of force are of LOW CHARACTER and are CONTEMTIBLE.

                      Nigger is also defined as “a person of any race or origin who is regarded as contemptible”.

                      You, in your rush to judgment, automatically condemned me for being racist when I did not say anything that could be construed as support for state law or policy predicated upon race.

                      Racism is fundamentally the support of policy or law based upon race.

                      According to you, when you have a black cop, who was probably hired upon an affirmative action / racist basis, assaulting an unarmed white kid, it is racist to call that cop a nigger.

                      No, it is not.

                      It may offend your politically correct sensibilities, but there are growing numbers of people who disagree. They do not want to be held captive in your politically correct prison.

                      A black cop who viciously assaults an unarmed white kid can be properly and accurately called a nigger.

                    5. True Scotsmen wear their kilts with no undergarments.

                    6. Nigger is also defined as “a person of any race or origin who is regarded as contemptible”.

                      You must be a big hit at parties.

                    7. What type of parties?

                    8. the cop has EVERY right to use (god forbid) AGGRESSION and he did so, well within the bounds of UOF doctrine, and common sense

      3. That nigger should go to jail for a long, long time for assault with the intent to do great bodily harm.

        If he had been Arab, libertymike would have just thought it was kinky and tried to find out much a session cost.

        Seriously, take that shit over to lewrockwell.

        1. Hi pansy.

          Did you see what he did to the kid?

          But, he’s black, so he’s immune to being called nigger.

          Not in the real world.

          1. Back into the filter for you, Racist Ray.

            1. Well, you can call me Ray…….

          2. Of course I did, cockmongler.

            Caught him in the throat and took him down. Not the gentlest takedown, I’ve had worse from John Law.

            But I see a guy with a badge and a drunk 22 year old. You see some black guy abusing a poor white boy who obviously got lost on his way from the church ice cream social.

            The question is, how is Officer Friendly being a “nigger” relevant to anything that happened in that video?

            1. “Nigger” a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible.

              Seems pretty applicable to that cro-magnon.

              1. After watching the Melbourne beatdown of an old man with dementia yesterday, my outrage meter doesn’t even hop for this penny-ante public disturbance crap.

                Ah, so “nigger” is just kind of an all-purpose vulgarity for you, kind of like “asshole” for other people. Okay, got it. Do the actions of the these two LEOs qualify them “niggerhood” as well? More COPS

                  1. the UOF by the officer is TEXTBOOK. verbal warnings (at least 4 iirc), clearly defined, and then a dynamic, forceful, explosive takedown.

                    executed phenomenally well. good start strength, and explosive strength. no telegraphing whatsoever.

                    done in a manner that respects his own officer safety, while also accomplishing the lawful task of placing the male under arrest. no muss, no fuss.

                    simply put, THIS is how you do it

                    compare and contrast with the melbourne case

                    the latter is, imo criminally actionable, and clearly excessive force.

                    this is CLEARLY lawful force, and not just lawful, but very well executed.

                  2. “Yes”? That’s it? That’s pretty uninspiring. I need a little more enthusiasm than that. Tell me about how these “niggers” should go to jail for assault, or how “if the guy had retaliated, he would have been justified in killing that blackwhite bastard.”

                    At least the LEO in my video punched the guy a few times after he was on the ground and subdued. Are you all out of outrage for the day?

                    1. Good point.

                      Yes, those cracka cops should go to jail for a long, long time.

                      Additionally, if the victime resisted and killed those pale swine, he would have abeen justified.

                      Not only that, if you or I came along and assisted the victim, we would be justified in saving the state some dough on the cops’ pensions.

  23. btw, i like the OP’s use of the term “mosaic of powers”. this sounds like it is borrowed from volokh.com and some current case law theorizing (mosaic principle), but it should be pounded into people’s heads.

    mosaic, much like “totality of the circ’s” is how people should look at these things. iow, you can look at individual laws in isolation, just like you can look at individual case facts at a scene, but you also MUST view them in relation to each other – the totality of circs and/or the mosaic

    well done

  24. In unrelated news, Avil Lavigne is single.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..cated.html

  25. Bailey is good when he stays away from science related subjects.

    1. No, he is good when he stays away from global warming related subjects. He is pretty good on things like GM foods.

  26. The article is half-right. We are are continually losing our social liberties. But our government and the 2 million + bureaucrats it has working for it seem to devout equal time to restricting our economic freedom.

    It used to be that the Republicans would resist the loss of economic liberty while the Dems would fight for social liberties. Now they cooperate with each other on destroying the freedom wherever it is found.

    1. There cooperation is not based on destroying freedom as much as financially profiting from control.

      1. or good intentions

  27. I turned around and the Statue of Liberty was behind me. Should I be concerned?

    1. Don’t blink. Blink and you’re dead. They are fast. Faster than you can believe. Don’t turn your back. Don’t look away. And don’t blink. Good Luck.

  28. Only if it’s half-buried in sand and you’re on the run from intelligent apes.

    1. Or if it has gigantic man-hands.

  29. This is a libertarian forum. As such, we do not need politically correct whiners who are offended by the use of the word….
    I understand that ‘cunt’ is acceptable

    1. Not to Ken Schultz.

      1. Libertymike, it is a word that I would never use in conversation; that is my choice.

        Can words hurt? Yes, but for all, it may not be one with such a toxic history.

        I am certain that this word does cut, and I believe that is what the true nature of the complaint

  30. What bothers me the most isn’t that the pols pas this crap it’s that there are Americans willing to carry it out. Why don’t cops stand up and refuse to enforce victimless “crime”? Why don’t the military generals stand up and refuse to attack another country without Congressional authorization? Why do people always lock there own shackles?

  31. I am seeking the right man who can give me a real love, so I joined in the Seekcasual*com.(user name winklin)It’s the first and best club for man and woman finding their intimate encounters. Well, you do not have to be lonely ,for you can meet the Mr. or Miss. Right there.,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.