The US Supreme Court vs. Your Right to Privacy
Dear A-Letter Reader:
In yesterday’s A-Letter , editor and former US congressman Bob Bauman, discussed the Bush administration’s authorization of the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without court order, a blatant usurpation of power of deep concern to those of us at The Sovereign Society. He concluded: “I do hope and think the recent revelation of warrantless wiretapping may make this the year when Americans say “enough” and vote accordingly.”
I’m less sanguine and would like to add my reasons.
The question of the legality of domestic spying is looming large as confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. progress. Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, asked Alito about our constitutional right to privacy, and naturally Alito responded, “Senator, I do agree that the Constitution protects a right to privacy.”
Yet, as a lawyer in the Solicitor General’s office in 1984, Alito supported absolute immunity from civil liability for Cabinet officials who had authorized illegal wiretaps of American citizens said to threaten national security. Later as a judge, he argued that police officers did not violate the Constitution when they strip-searched a mother and her ten year-old daughter, despite the fact that neither was named in the search warrant. In another case, he wrote an opinion upholding a warrantless police search. The list goes on.
The bitter fights between the two political parties to populate courts, and particularly the US Supreme Court, with partisan judges is hard evidence that courts are far from politically neutral. The Supreme Court is not, as schoolchildren are taught, the instrument insuring a balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.
The founding fathers would be dismayed over the evolution of power of the Executive Branch. Gradually, methodically, over more than a century the Executive has won the struggle for dominance. All the pomp and ceremony of committee hearings and congressional debates notwithstanding, the President effectively runs the show and Bush knows it.
To better grasp the relative importance of the Executive, peruse the US Government Manual, 2005-2006, the official publication that describes the branches, departments and agencies of the US Government. A total of 40 pages describe the Legislative Branch. Twenty pages details the Judicial Branch. A whopping 273 pages is devoted to the Executive, and that doesn’t count another 226 pages describing “Independent Establishments and Government Corporations”, including such things as the CIA, many of which are under the control of the Executive.
How does the Presidency wield so much power? One means is that the President issues Executive Orders, which become laws simply by their publication in the Federal Registry. Until someone in Congress challenges the constitutionality of an Executive Order, it stands. And that is what makes packing of the Supreme Court so important to politicians.
The Supreme Court of the United States enjoys a reputation, popularly undisputed, as the great protector of our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, as Henry Mark Holzer, professor emeritus of constitutional law, points out in his book, Sweet Land of Liberty? The Supreme Court and Individual Rights , the Supreme Court is our most consistent destroyer of individual rights - and always has been. Dissecting some sixty major Supreme Court decisions in seven crucial areas of the law which affect all our lives, he shows that traditional distinctions such as liberal or conservative are irrelevant in assessing blame, for both sides of the ideological coin are responsible.
The moral right to property - and therefore to privacy — exists. However, it no longer exists in law, only in the nature of man. And, unfortunately, only in the minds of those of us who deny the right of the state to control our lives. The challenge facing us who believe in the sovereignty of individuals is how to defend our privacy in a world that has been brainwashed to believe privacy is a threat to society, and in which politicians and judges agree. It is an ongoing task for anyone seeking to become a sovereign individual and one of the major issues that The Sovereign Society is committed to helping its members solve.
JOHN PUGSLEY, Chairman
The Sovereign Society Ltd.
E-mail: johnpugsley@sbcglobal.net
In yesterday’s A-Letter , editor and former US congressman Bob Bauman, discussed the Bush administration’s authorization of the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without court order, a blatant usurpation of power of deep concern to those of us at The Sovereign Society. He concluded: “I do hope and think the recent revelation of warrantless wiretapping may make this the year when Americans say “enough” and vote accordingly.”
I’m less sanguine and would like to add my reasons.
The question of the legality of domestic spying is looming large as confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. progress. Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, asked Alito about our constitutional right to privacy, and naturally Alito responded, “Senator, I do agree that the Constitution protects a right to privacy.”
Yet, as a lawyer in the Solicitor General’s office in 1984, Alito supported absolute immunity from civil liability for Cabinet officials who had authorized illegal wiretaps of American citizens said to threaten national security. Later as a judge, he argued that police officers did not violate the Constitution when they strip-searched a mother and her ten year-old daughter, despite the fact that neither was named in the search warrant. In another case, he wrote an opinion upholding a warrantless police search. The list goes on.
The bitter fights between the two political parties to populate courts, and particularly the US Supreme Court, with partisan judges is hard evidence that courts are far from politically neutral. The Supreme Court is not, as schoolchildren are taught, the instrument insuring a balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.
The founding fathers would be dismayed over the evolution of power of the Executive Branch. Gradually, methodically, over more than a century the Executive has won the struggle for dominance. All the pomp and ceremony of committee hearings and congressional debates notwithstanding, the President effectively runs the show and Bush knows it.
To better grasp the relative importance of the Executive, peruse the US Government Manual, 2005-2006, the official publication that describes the branches, departments and agencies of the US Government. A total of 40 pages describe the Legislative Branch. Twenty pages details the Judicial Branch. A whopping 273 pages is devoted to the Executive, and that doesn’t count another 226 pages describing “Independent Establishments and Government Corporations”, including such things as the CIA, many of which are under the control of the Executive.
How does the Presidency wield so much power? One means is that the President issues Executive Orders, which become laws simply by their publication in the Federal Registry. Until someone in Congress challenges the constitutionality of an Executive Order, it stands. And that is what makes packing of the Supreme Court so important to politicians.
The Supreme Court of the United States enjoys a reputation, popularly undisputed, as the great protector of our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, as Henry Mark Holzer, professor emeritus of constitutional law, points out in his book, Sweet Land of Liberty? The Supreme Court and Individual Rights , the Supreme Court is our most consistent destroyer of individual rights - and always has been. Dissecting some sixty major Supreme Court decisions in seven crucial areas of the law which affect all our lives, he shows that traditional distinctions such as liberal or conservative are irrelevant in assessing blame, for both sides of the ideological coin are responsible.
The moral right to property - and therefore to privacy — exists. However, it no longer exists in law, only in the nature of man. And, unfortunately, only in the minds of those of us who deny the right of the state to control our lives. The challenge facing us who believe in the sovereignty of individuals is how to defend our privacy in a world that has been brainwashed to believe privacy is a threat to society, and in which politicians and judges agree. It is an ongoing task for anyone seeking to become a sovereign individual and one of the major issues that The Sovereign Society is committed to helping its members solve.
JOHN PUGSLEY, Chairman
The Sovereign Society Ltd.
E-mail: johnpugsley@sbcglobal.net
posted by Jim at 7:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home