Travel to Cuba low now – travel restrictions and economies prevent
Download 0.7 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- I/L – Violating Constitution Liberty
- Cuba travel is a Constitutional right, so voting negative is a violation of the Constitution
- The Fifth Amendment is largely important for our freedom
- Impact – Liberty Impacts
- Liberty and freedom are the most important impacts – undermining them leads to chaos and tyranny
- Liberty is key to a large amount of human entitlements
- The government breaking the Constitution takes away human freedoms and sinks the economy
- Unconstitutionality leads to tyranny, killing our freedom
- It is vital for our freedom that we preserve our democratic rights
- Liberty is an a-priori concern which much be kept strong
- Liberty and freedom are key for our value to life – this outweighs their impacts
- Violating the constitution loses the battle for our way of life
- Allowing the government to break the Constitution leads to a world where the American populous has no value to life.
***Constitutionality Adv.***Travel Ban Violates ConstitutionSquo policy violates the 5th AmendmentCCR 10 – Nonprofit Legal Advocacy Organization in New York. Dedicated to Protecting US constitutional and international human rights [Vincent Warren Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Open Letter to President Obama regarding Travel to Cuba, 8/26/10, http://ccrjustice.org/files/Cuba_Travel_Letter_to_Obama_82610.pdf] The Supreme Court has recognized that the United States Constitution's substantive due process guarantees include a limitation on the government's ability to restrict travel. Among other things, the Fifth Amendment requires that any restriction on a citizen's right to travel must be justified by a government interest important enough to outweigh that right. In the past, the Court has sided with the U.S. government and upheld Cuba travel restrictions based on the government's argument that "interests of national security" outweighed any right to travel to the island. However, since reimposing the travel restrictions in 1982, the U.S. government has consistently claimed that the restrictions on travel-related transactions are intended to cut off the flow of hard currency to Cuba. 1 Whether such a governmental interest could withstand constitutional challenge under even rational review, given the clear infringement of U.S. citizens' right to international travel, is highly dubious- particularly when considered against the $600 million to $1 billion sent to Cuba in recent years in the form of permissible remittances.2 While we support the Administration's changes concerning remittances last year as a matter of principle and policy, the reality remains that a portion of that multi-million dollar export to the island nation inevitably returns to the Cuban state. Thus, to limit currency flows to Cuba by strictly limiting travel-related transactions remains irrational and unlikely to achieve even the averred goal of causing regime change within the country. I/L – Violating Constitution LibertyOur freedom of movement is being unjustly broken by the travel embargo on Cuba, causing a loss of libertyThomson, 1/3 – (Wendy, “Air travel is a right”, TSA News, 1/3/13, http://tsanewsblog.com/8414/news/air-travel-is-a-right/)//AB The Judge also sent a strong message as to the hurdle the DOJ would have to overcome regarding air travel: “The right to travel here and abroad is an important constitutional right. To deny this right to a citizen . . . based on inaccurate information without an effective means of redress would unconstitutionally burden the right to travel. While the Constitution does not ordinarily agree the right to travel by any particular form of transportation, given that other forms of travel usually remain possible, the fact remains that for international travel, air transport in these modern times is practically the only form of transportation, travel by ship being prohibitively expensive or so it will be presumed at the pleading stage.” This isn’t exactly new, as so eloquently stated in Kent v. Dulles (1958): “The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.” Cuba travel is a Constitutional right, so voting negative is a violation of the ConstitutionMozer 11 (David Mozer, IBF, “Cuba Right to Travel: The Constitutional Case,’ 2011, http://www.ibike.org/cuba/ofac/law.htm, accessed 6/27/13, IS) The arguments for rights of Americans to travel to Cuba are primarily grounded in amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These expand out to include the rights of to travel abroad, to seek information relevant to public issues through foreign travel, and to exchange information and views with people in other countries; rights derived from the First and Fifth Amendments of the "Bill of Rights."¶ Before the "Bill of Rights," in Anglo-Saxon law, the of the right to travel emerges at least as earl as the Magna Carta. Article 42 reads:¶ It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.¶ In Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1948) at 499 -500, the United States Surpeme Court stated that: "Although the Court has not assumed to define `liberty' with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."¶ In the U.S., the right to travel is derived from the synthesis of several rights. This was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.¶ "The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."¶ The case involved the Secretary of States refusal to issue a passport because the plaintiff wouldn't file an affidavit regarding his political beliefs. In the majority (5-4) opinion Justice William Douglas wrote"¶ The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law, that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta. Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787 (1956), 171-181, 187 et seq., shows how deeply engrained in our history this freedom of movement is. Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values. See Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 44; Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160. "Our nation," wrote Chafee, has thrived on the principle that, outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases." Id. at 197. The Fifth Amendment is largely important for our freedomPostell, 07 – (“Securing Liberty: The Purpose and Importance of the Bill of Rights”, 12/14/07, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/12/securing-liberty-the-purpose-and-importance-of-the-bill-of-rights)//AB There is one final question to be answered: Even if Madison believed that a bill of rights could be framed--as ours surely was--with the intent of preventing the implication of powers not granted to the government by the Constitution, what benefit could be gained by it? Was it not Madison who argued most forcefully that we cannot trust in parchment barriers? The answer is that Madison indeed thought ambition would counteract ambition, to "oblige the government to control itself" This was the idea of checks and balances. But it does not explain how the Founders proposed to safeguard individual liberty from tyranny of the majority, rather than tyranny of the rulers over the ruled. The safeguard of individual liberty, Madison reasoned, must lie with the people themselves. It is the people who must be responsible for defending their liberties. And a bill of rights, Madison and his colleagues finally concluded, might support public understanding and knowledge of individual liberty that would assist citizens in the task of defending their liberties. A bill of rights, they saw, could serve the noble purpose of public education and edification. As Madison confided to Jefferson, "The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion." From this view, our first 10 amendments are still important today, in their text and substance, beyond their legal effect. They still call upon us to study them for the sake of knowing our liberties and defending them from all encroachments. Although these amendments may be nothing more than "parchment barriers," they can still provide a bulwark against encroachments on our rights. For as Hamilton wrote in Federalist 84, the security of liberty, "whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government. And here, after all...must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights." Impact – Liberty ImpactsUpholding liberty is a key importance for all humans to live and a reason to vote affFried, 05 – (Charles, “The Nature and Importance of Liberty”, 9/22/05, pg. 1) What is liberty, and why is it important? Why do we care about it? The first premise that I offer here is that liberty is an expression of what is valuable about us as human beings. It is a natural law idea; that is to say, it is a moral imperative based on what is fundamental (another moral idea) about our human nature. I would say that what is important about us, what makes us moral human beings, is our individual capacities to think, reason, choose, and value. It is what Kant called our freedom and rationality. Individuals, therefore, are the elementary particles of moral discourse. Our value is our taking individual responsibility for our lives, and our choices. And if a person is to count as a person—and here we have the difficult questions about the beginning and the end of life—then we are all equally valuable in this same way. It is from that base of our equal responsibility for ourselves that we choose our goods: that we choose what to make of the only life we will ever have. My liberty, then, is my ability to choose that life. No one has the right to interfere with that choice, except as it is to further his own good. But that good of the other is worth no more than mine because he is not worth any more than I am. There is, therefore, a right of mutual noninterference: an equal right. By the same token, nobody can interfere with or draft another person to help him achieve his own good if the other person has not chosen voluntarily to enlist in that campaign. Liberty and freedom are the most important impacts – undermining them leads to chaos and tyrannyPetro, 1974 – (Sylvester, 1974, University of Toledo Law Review, pg 4801 FG) However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume's observation: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and the Proper ordering; principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit. Liberty is key to a large amount of human entitlementsCATO, 2012 – (“Policy Forum: The Importance of Liberty: At Home and Abroad”, 6/7/12, http://www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2012/policy-forum-importance-liberty-home-abroad)//AB The American people are ready to hear the truth. They know our government is out of control. And the only thing they care more about than today is tomorrow — because tomorrow is about our children and grandchildren, and today is just about us. The bottom line is we took action — we did it with solid principles and strong leadership — putting our state's interests ahead of partisan ones. We turned Trenton upside down. And in the difficult times that America is in now, the only way to govern is by treating our citizens as adults — by telling them the truth about the depth of our challenges and the difficulty of the solutions. When we fail to do this, we pay the price as a country many times over. The domestic price is obvious: growth slows, unemployment persists, and we make ourselves even more vulnerable to the unpredictable behavior of rightfully skittish markets. But there's also a foreign policy price to pay. To begin with, we diminish our ability to influence the thinking and ultimately the behavior of others. Democracy is the best protector of human dignity, liberty, and freedom — and history shows that mature democracies are less likely to resort to force against both their citizens and their neighbors. Yet, all across the world — in the Middle East and Asia and Africa and Latin America — people are debating their own political and economic futures. They're looking for inspiration, and we have a stake in the outcome of those debates. There's no better way to reinforce the likelihood that others in the world will opt for more open societies and marketbased economies than to demonstrate that our own system is working well. At one time in our history, our greatness was a reflection of our country's innovation, determination, ingenuity, and the strength of our democratic institutions. When there was a crisis in the world, Americans found a way to come together to help our allies and fight our enemies. When there was a crisis at home, we put aside parochialism and put the greater public interest first. Today, our ability to effect change has been diminished because of our own inability and unwillingness to effectively deal with our problems. Now, I understand full well that succeeding at home and setting an example is not enough. But it's a start. And I realize that what I'm calling for requires a lot of our elected officials and our people. I plead guilty to that. But I also plead guilty to being an optimist, because I believe in what this country and its citizens can accomplish if they understand what's being asked of them. We seem to have forgotten that this is a human business. Day after day, I've spent time sitting with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, convincing them of my intentions and letting them know that I don't believe compromise is a dirty word. There's always a boulevard between compromising your principles and getting everything you want. You should never compromise your principles. But you also need to understand that you're not always going to get everything you want. The job of a leader is to find your way onto the boulevard between the two without driving into the ditch of compromising what you believe. And trust me, if you can do this in New Jersey, you can do it anywhere. That's where my optimism comes from. See, I'm not looking to be loved. I get plenty of love at home — and when you're looking for love in this job, that's when deficits get run up. However, if you make people understand that you're willing to say no, but you're also always willing to listen — that you're willing to stand hard on principles, but you're also willing to compromise when those principles won't be violated — then respect will come. It's about being consistent. It's about leading by example. It's about standing up for the things that we believe in, instead of simply trying to figure out which way the wind's blowing. There's no need for varnish anymore. In fact, I don't think we have the luxury to put it on. Liberty and freedom and the human spirit are the most powerful things in the world — and we need to say that directly to the American people. They're ready to hear it. Impacts – FreedomThe government breaking the Constitution takes away human freedoms and sinks the economyRinger, 12 – (Robert, “America’s Problem is Government Taking Away People’s Freedom: Does Rick Santorum Agree with Ron Paul?”, A Voice of Sanity, 3/22, http://avoiceofsanity.com/roberts-insights/americas-problem-is-government-taking-away-peoples-freedom-does-rick-santorum-agree-with-ron-paul/)//AB To say the least, I’m not a big Rick Santorum fan. Even so, I am obliged to say I was impressed by his statement earlier this week that “the issue in the presidential race is not the economy, but an oppressive government that’s taking away people’s freedom.” Love him or hate him, Santorum was spot on with that one. The ever-worsening state of the economy (and, yes, it is getting worse) is but a symptom of the ever-worsening state of our freedom (the cause). The government cannot “fix” the economy. Only free people can do that. The government, however, is quite capable of making the economy worse. George W. Bush proved that, and Barack Obama is making him look like a free-market champion by comparison. Kids who can’t open a lemonade stand without fear of being fined are not living in a free country. An Idaho couple that has to take its case all the way to the Supreme Court just to earn the right to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency ruling that their property is a “protected wetland,” and that they are therefore barred from building on it, is not living in a free country. When the government can take your money and redistribute it to others, force you to buy a product you do not want, spy on you without cause, even kill you — you are not living in a free country. Ron Paul has been preaching this message for more than three decades, so, quite naturally, he is reviled by the establishment in both wings of the Demopublican Party. In case you’ve never seen them before, here are Paul’s Six Forgotten Principles of Freedom: Rights belong to individuals, not groups. Property was intended to be owned by people, not governments. All voluntary associations should be permissible, both economic and social. The government’s monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not to participate in fraud by debauching it. The justification for the existence of government is to protect the liberty of individuals, not to redistribute wealth or pass out special privileges. People’s lives and actions are their own responsibility, not the government’s. Unconstitutionality leads to tyranny, killing our freedomRoland 12- founder of Constitution Society, which works to educate the public of the principles of constitutional republican government. [Jon Roland, “Principles of Tyranny”, Constitution Society, 6/19/12, http://constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm, accessed 6/29/13] Definition of tyranny: Tyranny is usually thought of as cruel and oppressive, and it often is, but the original definition of the term was rule by persons who lack legitimacy, whether they be malign or benevolent. Historically, benign tyrannies have tended to be insecure, and to try to maintain their power by becoming increasingly oppressive. Therefore, rule that initially seems benign is inherently dangerous, and the only security is to maintain legitimacy — an unbroken accountability to the people through the framework of a written constitution that provides for election of key officials and the division of powers among branches and officials in a way that avoids concentration of powers in the hands of a few persons who might then abuse those powers.¶ Tyranny is an important phenomenon that operates by principles by which it can be recognized in its early emerging stages, and, if the people are vigilant, prepared, and committed to liberty, countered before it becomes entrenched.¶ The psychology of tyranny¶ Perhaps one of the things that most distinguishes those with a fascist mentality from most other persons is how they react in situations that engender feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. Both kinds of people will tend to seek to increase their power, that is, their control over the outcome of events, but those with a fascist mindset tend to overestimate the amount of influence over outcomes that it is possible to attain. This leads to behavior that often brings them to positions of leadership or authority, especially if most other persons in their society tend to underestimate the influence over outcomes they can attain, and are inclined to yield to those who project confidence in what they can do and promise more than anyone can deliver.¶ This process is aided by a common susceptibility which might be called the rooster syndrome, from the old saying, "They give credit to the rooster crowing for the rising of the sun." It arises from the tendency of people guided more by hope or fear than intelligence to overestimate the power of their leaders and attribute to them outcomes, either good or bad, to which the leaders contributed little if anything, and perhaps even acted to prevent or reduce. This comes from the inability of most persons to understand complex dynamic systems and their long-term behavior, which leads people to attribute effects to proximate preceding events instead of actual long-term causes.¶ The emergence of tyranny therefore begins with challenges to a group, develops into general feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, and falls into a pattern in which some individuals assume the role of "father" to the others, who willingly submit to becoming dependent "children" of such persons if only they are reassured that a more favorable outcome will be realized. This pattern of co-dependency is pathological, and generally results in decisionmaking of poor quality that makes the situation even worse, but, because the pattern is pathological, instead of abandoning it, the co-dependents repeat their inappropriate behavior to produce a vicious spiral that, if not interrupted, can lead to total breakdown of the group and the worst of the available outcomes.¶ In psychiatry, this syndrome is often discussed as an "authoritarian personality disorder". In common parlance, as being a "control freak".¶ The logic of tyranny¶ In Orwell's classic fable, Nineteen Eighty-Four, the protagonist Winston Smith makes a key statement:¶ Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.¶ Following the trial of the surviving Branch Davidians in San Antonio, Texas, in March, 1994, in which a misinstructed jury acquitted all the defendants of the main crimes with which they were charged, but convicted them of the enhancements of using firearms in the commission of a crime, the federal judge, Walter F. Smith, first dismissed the charges, correctly, on the grounds that it is logically impossible to be guilty of an enhancement if one is innocent of the crime. However, under apparent political pressure, he subsequently reversed his own ruling and sentenced the defendants to maximum terms as though they had been convicted of the main crimes, offering the comment, "The law doesn't have to be logical."¶ No. The law does have to be logical. Otherwise it is not law. It is arbitrary rule by force.¶ Now by "logical" what is meant is two-valued logic, which is sometimes also called Boolean, Aristotelian or Euclidean logic. In other words, a system of propositions within which a statement and its negation cannot both be true or valid. One of the two must be false or invalid. The two possible values are true and false, and every meaningful proposition can be assigned one or the other value.¶ A system of law is a body of prescriptive, as opposed to descriptive, propositions, that support the making of decisions, and therefore its logic must be two-valued. It is a fundamental principle of law that like cases must be decided alike, and this means according to propositions that exclude their contradictions.¶ It is also a fundamental principle of logic that any system of propositions that accepts both a statement and its negation as valid, that is, which accepts a contradiction, accepts all contradictions, and provides no basis for deciding among them. If decisions are made, they are not made on the basis of the propositions, but are arbitrary, and that is the definition of the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law.¶ So what Winston Smith is saying is that freedom means being able to distinguish between a true proposition and a false one, and what his nemesis O'Brien therefore does to crush him is make him accept that "2 + 2 = 5", which cannot be true if the logic is Aristotelian. O'Brien represents the logic of arbitrary power, a "logic" we might call Orwellian, although Orwell, whose real name was Eric Blair, was strongly opposed to it.¶ The methodology of tyranny¶ The methods used to overthrow a constitutional order and establish a tyranny are well-known. However, despite this awareness, it is surprising how those who have no intention of perpetrating a tyranny can slip into these methods and bring about a tyranny despite their best intentions. Tyranny does not have to be deliberate. Tyrants can fool themselves as thoroughly as they fool everyone else.¶ Control of public information and opinion¶ It begins with withholding information, and leads to putting out false or misleading information. A government can develop ministries of propaganda under many guises. They typically call it "public information" or "marketing".¶ Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers¶ It doesn't matter which of the two major party candidates are elected if no real reformer can get nominated, and when news services start knowing the outcomes of elections before it is possible for them to know, then the votes are not being honestly counted.¶ Undue official influence on trials and juries¶ Nonrandom selection of jury panels, exclusion of those opposed to the law, exclusion of the jury from hearing argument on the law, exclusion of private prosecutors from access to the grand jury, and prevention of parties and their counsels from making effective arguments or challenging the government.¶ Usurpation of undelegated powers¶ This is usually done with popular support for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction, but it soon leads to the deprivation of rights of minorities and individuals.¶ Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of armed force¶ The first signs are efforts to register or restrict the possession and use of firearms, initially under the guise of "protecting" the public, which, when it actually results in increased crime, provides a basis for further disarmament efforts affecting more people and more weapons.¶ Militarization of law enforcement¶ Declaring a "war on crime" that becomes a war on civil liberties. Preparation of military forces for internal policing duties.¶ Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be forces for reform¶ Internal spying and surveillance is the beginning. A sign is false prosecutions of their leaders.¶ Suppression of investigators and whistleblowers¶ When people who try to uncover high level wrongdoing are threatened, that is a sign the system is not only riddled with corruption, but that the corruption has passed the threshold into active tyranny.¶ Use of the law for competition suppression¶ It begins with the dominant faction winning support by paying off their supporters and suppressing their supporters' competitors, but leads to public officials themselves engaging in illegal activities and using the law to suppress independent competitors. A good example of this is narcotics trafficking.¶ Subversion of internal checks and balances¶ This involves the appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, and who are then induced to do illegal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appointment of judges that will go along with unconstitutional acts by the other branches.¶ Creation of a class of officials who are above the law¶ This is indicated by dismissal of charges for wrongdoing against persons who are "following orders".¶ Increasing dependency of the people on government¶ The classic approach to domination of the people is to first take everything they have away from them, then make them compliant with the demands of the rulers to get anything back again.¶ Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform them¶ When the people avoid doing things like voting and serving in militias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.¶ Use of staged events to produce popular support¶ Acts of terrorism, blamed on political opponents, followed immediately with well-prepared proposals for increased powers and budgets for suppressive agencies. Sometimes called a Reichstag plot.¶ Conversion of rights into privileges¶ Requiring licenses and permits for doing things that the government does not have the delegated power to restrict, except by due process in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner.¶ Political correctness¶ Many if not most people are susceptible to being recruited to engage in repressive actions against disfavored views or behaviors, and led to pave the way for the dominance of tyrannical government.¶ Avoiding tyranny¶ The key is always to detect tendencies toward tyranny and suppress them before they go too far or become too firmly established. The people must never acquiesce in any violation of the Constitution. Failure to take corrective action early will only mean that more severe measures will have to be taken later, perhaps with the loss of life and the disruption of the society in ways from which recovery may take centuries. It is vital for our freedom that we preserve our democratic rightsStverak 13- president of the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity [Jason Stverak, “Upholding our Constitution is not a partisan issue, it's an American issue”, Fox News, 6/13/13, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/13/upholding-our-constitution-is-not-partisan-issue-it-american-issue/, accessed 6/28/13] To many Americans, Karim’s tragedy seems like an awful story of abuse in far off country, but this week, we learned that the United States government isn’t much different. The NSA now has access to records of every call made on Verizon cell phones in America, and is separately authorized by the Patriot Act to conduct wiretaps. We recently learned that the NSA is pulling our personal information, photos, and emails from the servers of popular websites like Google, Facebook, and YouTube, and that they’re tracking our credit card purchases as well. While we don’t yet know what the Obama administration plans to do with the details of who we’re calling, how long we’re speaking to them, and where we’re calling from, that’s beside the point. The real issue at stake is the growing chasm between the powers we granted to government in our Constitution, and the powers government has seized. Civil liberties were at the core of the American founding, and the recognition of these liberties in our Constitution and Bill of Rights is supposed to separate us from the totalitarian dictatorships of the world. But these liberties are quickly eroding, and all Americans, regardless of their political leanings, should be deeply concerned about the gross abuses of power we’ve seen from the Obama administration in recent weeks. Even politicians as different in their views as Vice President Al Gore and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz agree: the government has infringed too far on our personal lives and liberties, and it’s time to take a stand. A thousand paper cuts can be as deadly as a single gunshot, and our civil liberties are bleeding out from the sheer volume of direct attacks by the Obama administration. Whether it’s the IRS auditing grandmothers who have worked with the Tea Party, or the EPA targeting conservative groups, or the Justice Department harassing reporters, or even HHS extorting funds from health insurance providers, every day we learn about a different department violating our rights. What’s scariest of all is that these each of these scandals continued for months or even years before they came to light. It’s fair to wonder exactly how many other federal agencies are abusing power, targeting the administration’s foes, and invading our privacy under the cover of darkness. In fact, at this point, all areas of government deserve a healthy degree of suspicion. In the era of the paternalistic surveillance state--where government gives itself permission to invade your privacy because it think it knows what is “best” for you--blind indifference is possibly the most dangerous threat to our freedoms. Impacts – Value to LifeLiberty is an a-priori concern which much be kept strongMcMilian, 2011 – (Marlene, “Does Liberty REALLY Matter?”, Why Liberty Matters, 2011, http://www.whylibertymatters.com/)//AB This is a crucial time for our Liberty. We have recently witnessed the biggest economic disruption in the history of the world, and almost instantly seen the United States Constitution eroded in a way that threatens every Liberty we have so long taken for granted. The time for vigilance of our Liberty has become even more important. Liberty is a powerful concept. It affects everything that happens to you and every choice you have the ability to make. It affects the way you raise your children, the place you live, the daily freedoms you do or do not have, and your ability to fulfill your God-given Kingdom purpose. Liberty affects everything and everyone. Every decision you make either leads you toward greater liberty or toward bondage. What is Liberty? “Liberty is the opportunity to make a choice to assume responsibility and accept the consequences.” Liberty is a God-given idea placed within the heart of all peoples. As the people in this Nation have looked to civil government as their source, we have lost many of our essential Liberties. Liberty entails responsibility. You cannot be dependent on someone else and free at the same time. Control follows money. He who pays controls. If you want to pick the restaurant for dinner, just say you are buying and everyone will be happy to eat where you are paying. Some believe that the civil government owes them. They want the handouts without any strings attached, yet all government money comes with strings attached. This entitlement mentality takes away a person’s freedom to determine their own destiny. Whoever controls the money controls everything else. If you want to control your own destiny, then you must control your own money and not be dependent on anyone else. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is considered normal in our society. However, government redistribution of wealth is a fundamental belief of communism. Therefore, it cannot be a principle of Liberty. The instability of recent days is a clarion call for everyone to get informed about Liberty. Most Americans would tell you they are still free. And even though we still have more freedom than most countries of the world, we have exchanged many of our Constitutionally-guaranteed Liberties for the illusion of safety and protection. Liberty and freedom are key for our value to life – this outweighs their impactsMichael, 3/17 – (Christian, “Freedom More Important Than Security, Stability, Life” christianmicheal, 3/17/13, http://christianmichael.org/2013/03/17/freedom-more-important-than-security-stability-life/)//AB Throughout history, this climb from freedom into various securities has manifested itself in variable ways, ranging from secular and holy monarchy, to dictatorship and junta, to parliamentary empire, to shades of democracy, to various forms of governmental union, all promising to do for the people after convincing the people that the people, themselves, could not do it. Those attempts at security, though, eventually turn on the people, and they turn begging for freedom, all the while forgetting they ran as surely from freedom as they eventually run from their government. A key difference is that freedom never indoctrinates people to believe they need it. Instead, it is something they realize on their own — after enough people have died — that freedom is the only route to happiness. Those who fight for freedom know best its value, but so often fail to transfer that understanding to their children. Soon those children, or their children, fail to see freedom’s value. After all, freedom doesn’t use scare tactics, or squeeze dissenters, discredit disbelievers or use the media to show them how wrong they are. Freedom lets you do as you want, so long as you don’t hurt anyone or impair their freedoms. People will keep you in check when you fringe upon their freedoms, but no one will keep you from giving up your own. Governments, on the other hand, don’t want you to believe that you can do without them. They will do everything in their power to illustrate how dangerous freedom is, how much you need to give up your freedom so they can protect you, provide for you, and keep you from having to take responsibility for your own life, security and fate. “But people might hurt you! Mother nature might take away your possessions and loved ones! Terrorists will hate you for your freedom!” In other words, from the government to your ears: “Without us, you’re nothing but a target for evil.” And they’d be wrong. Freedom, when exercised by people who take responsibility for themselves and voluntarily for their neighbors, breeds the very best in humanity, promoting self-management, self-rule, self-regulation, moderation, growth and mercy. A responsibly free people govern themselves, and that makes all the difference! The nature of government (generic) is all about control. Who should be most in control? The best answer: human beings who govern themselves and leave everyone else to govern their own lives. No human is more capable of running someone else’s life — we’re all equally flawed, just in different ways. But freedom won’t fight for itself. Freedom, by its very nature, doesn’t attempt to take from you, hurt you or control you. Freedom says: You’re a human being with a mind for thinking and a heart for feeling. Learn to control them, and yourself, and live in harmony with those around you. Don’t presume that what works for you will work for anyone else, and if it does, sell people on the merits of it, ultimately letting them choose for themselves over forcing them to do as you think best. By returning to freedom, we loosen people from the debilitating effects Government has on human minds. Like unshackling a slave who has been convinced those shackles can never be released, it will scare people to think that what they were convinced of was wrong. People are frightened of losing those shackles. They’ve been taught those shackles are for their safety, like an abusive husband who has convinced his wife that she cannot survive without him, all the while preying on her hard work and good heart. But the covenant she made was to a healthy relationship and a man he used to be, or portrayed himself to be. It will take her being hit too often, and her own children come under threat, before she realizes that anything is better than the soft-talking government who cannot survive on its own, who needs someone to own and control. Without a willing populace, the government is weak and easily destroyed. In order to return people to freedom will require fighting the people more than fighting the government. And to do so, it can’t be done by forcing them to it, by the very token that freedom forced will taste more bitter than the abuse already suffered at the government. Like all good things in the community of freedom, we must convince people of its merit, of its long-term value to benefit people of all walks and all ages, to illustrate that they will come to a better tomorrow with less control and more contentment. Freedom is vital. All people die, but dying under freedom is better than under government. We must each learn why freedom is important to us and then show it to others, and help them discover their own full potential under freedom. Until then, this fight will go nowhere. Violating the constitution loses the battle for our way of lifeWeinstein 03- Associate professor at University of Nevada [Jonathan Weinstein, “When Do We Need the Constitution?”, The New York Times, 11/9/03, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/opinion/l-when-do-we-need-the-constitution-041734.html, accessed 6/30/13] The Constitution has ever been in danger in times of conflict and fear. We must never lose sight of the fact that the battle against terror is also a battle for our way of life and the ideals on which our nation was founded. When we violate the inalienable rights of detainees, when we respond to attacks on our society by becoming, however slightly, more like those societies we abhor, the battle is already lost. The Supreme Court must send a sharp message that the Constitution is not just for easy times.
Ultimately, the fate of American liberty is in the hands of American voters. Though we are less free with every tick of the clock, most of us still believe that the government is supposed to serve the people—fairly, not selectively. There are some surprisingly direct ways to address the excesses I’ve described. First, Congress and the state legislatures should enact legislation that simply requires the police, all other law enforcement personnel, and everyone who works for or is an agent of the government to be governed by, subject to, and required to comply with all the laws. That would eliminate virtually all entrapment, and it would enhance respect for the law. If the police are required to obey the same laws as the rest of us, our respect for them and for the laws they enforce would dramatically increase, and their jobs would become easier. In short, it would be against the law to break the law. Second, Congress and the state legislatures should make it easier to sue the federal and state governments for monetary damages when they violate our constitutional liberties. The federal government and many states have rendered themselves immune (called “sovereign immunity”) from such lawsuits if the lawsuit attacks the exercise of discretion by government employees. That is nonsense. You can sue your neighbor for negligence if his car runs over your garden or your dog. You can sue your physician if he leaves a scalpel in your belly. You should be able to sue the local police, state police, and the FBI under the same legal theories if they torment you, prevent you from speaking freely, bribe witnesses to testify against you, steal your property, or break the law in order to convict you. If the Constitution is enforced selectively, according to the contemporary wants and needs of the government, we will continue to see public trials in some cities and secret trials in others; free speech suppressed on inexplicable whims; police targeting the weak and killing the innocent; and government lying to its citizens, stealing their property, tricking them into criminal acts, bribing its witnesses against them, making a mockery of legal reasoning, and breaking the laws in order to enforce them. This is not the type of government we, the people, have authorized to exist, and it is not the type of government that we should tolerate. We can do better. If government crimes are not checked, our Constitution will be meaningless, and our attempts to understand it, enforce it, and rely on it will be chaotic. Download 0.7 Mb. Share with your friends:
|