Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(77,066 posts)
Mon Feb 13, 2012, 09:08 AM Feb 2012

Jim Hightower: In the Constitution, "security" means protection from our law enforcers, not by them


A blitz of warrantless surveillance and imprisonments without trial
[font size="3"][font color="red"]In the Constitution, "security" means protection from our law enforcers, not by them[/font][/font]


The earth's core, consisting largely of iron, helps balance our spinning planet. On the other hand, the core of too many of today's prominent political leaders consists almost entirely of unintended irony, which tends to make them go all wobbly on their political stands. This might be comical were it not so destructive for our nation.

For example, check out the politicos who're raising such a cacophony these days about big, intrusive government. Ironically, they're usually the same knee-jerks who so fervidly advocate the expansion of government's biggest and most intrusive force: police power. Since 9/11, this bunch has screeched non-stop that the only way to make the American people secure in this terrifying age is to jackhammer the word "secure" out of the Fourth Amendment--the only place in the Bill of Rights where the term appears.

The founders (made of much stronger stuff than today's political harpies) believed that genuine security for a democratic people comes from strengthening their right and ability to resist the autocratic impulses of the authorities. By deliberately placing "secure" in this key Bill of Rights passage, they certainly did not intend for it to be twisted into a meek call for ever-expanding police power to "protect" the citizenry, but instead to give citizens essential legal guarantees to protect themselves from police power.

It wasn't political theory that shaped their phrasing--it was rough, real-life experience with King George III's security forces. Thus, they wrote with unmistakable conviction: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...." .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/2900



8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jim Hightower: In the Constitution, "security" means protection from our law enforcers, not by them (Original Post) marmar Feb 2012 OP
I really like Jim Hightower. ananda Feb 2012 #1
I had the great fortune to sit next to him at a luncheon CottonBear Feb 2012 #4
That is a pre-9/11 mode of thinking. stillwaiting Feb 2012 #2
Thank you. Keep reposting this woo me with science Feb 2012 #3
to refine a bit: the bill of rights didn't "give" the citizenry anything. unblock Feb 2012 #5
K&R Solly Mack Feb 2012 #6
K&R raouldukelives Feb 2012 #7
DURec for Jim Hightower bvar22 Feb 2012 #8

CottonBear

(21,596 posts)
4. I had the great fortune to sit next to him at a luncheon
Mon Feb 13, 2012, 10:46 AM
Feb 2012

at a land planning forum on proposed new passenger rail lines in Georgia.

He is one of the nicest people I have ever met. Also, one of the smartest. He is a gem!

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
2. That is a pre-9/11 mode of thinking.
Mon Feb 13, 2012, 09:42 AM
Feb 2012


9/11, and before that the WTC attack and Oklahoma City, sure provided a good cover for the fascists' dreams of dismantling our freedoms. Our TRUE freedoms, that is.

I shudder to think what they have in store for us next if/when the next terror attack hits the U.S. I know I will fight strongly against whatever they have planned, but I fear that too many Americans will allow for further deterioration into police state tyranny.

unblock

(52,181 posts)
5. to refine a bit: the bill of rights didn't "give" the citizenry anything.
Mon Feb 13, 2012, 10:57 AM
Feb 2012

rather, it denied to the government the power to infringe on rights the people already had.

the entire premise of the constitution is that it is a granting of (limited) power from the people to the government.




note that the real "nanny-state" people are the ones screaming for a massive police force to "protect" us, often from imaginary, fabricated, or at least dramatically overstated fears.

raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
7. K&R
Mon Feb 13, 2012, 12:41 PM
Feb 2012

I fear these changes are permanent. It's not America anymore. At least, not the one we were taught to believe in. Were now just the jack booted thugs of Wall St. Able to respond at a moments notice to protect the interests of the worlds wealthiest people. Unknowing and uncaring about quaint things like justice and liberty that can get in the way of maximizing profits off the backs of the worlds poorest citizens. We are swiftly becoming freedoms worst enemy. Like a Christian that spouts the Gospel the loudest and then persecutes the least among us so to do we pay lip service to the ideals of our forefathers.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
8. DURec for Jim Hightower
Mon Feb 13, 2012, 04:12 PM
Feb 2012

[font color=firebrick size=4][center]"The only thing in the Middle of the Road
are Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos."
--Jim Hightower
[center][/center][/font][/center]




[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Jim Hightower: In the Con...