Can Congress Steal Your Constitutional Freedoms?
Can the president use the military to arrest anyone he wants, keep that person away from a judge and jury, and lock him up for as long as he wants? In the Senate’s dark and terrifying vision of the Constitution, he can.
Congress is supposed to work in public. That requirement is in the Constitution. It is there because the folks who wrote the Constitution had suffered long and hard under the British Privy Council, a secret group that advised the king and ran his government. We know from the now-defunct supercommittee, and other times when Congress has locked its doors, that government loves secrecy and hates transparency. Transparency forces the government to answer to us. Secrecy lets it steal our liberty and our property behind our backs.
Last week, while our minds were on family and turkey and football, the Senate Armed Services Committee decided to meet in secret. So, behind closed doors, it drafted an amendment to a bill appropriating money for the Pentagon. The amendment would permit the president to use the military for law enforcement purposes in the United States. This, of course, would present a radical departure from any use to which the military has been put in the memory of any Americans now living.
The last time the federal government regularly used the military for domestic law enforcement was at the end of Reconstruction in the South, in 1876. In fact, the deal to end Reconstruction resulted in the enactment of federal laws forbidding the domestic use of American military for law enforcement purposes. This has been our law, our custom, and our set of values to which every president has adhered for 135 years.
It is not for directing traffic that this legislation would authorize the president to use the military. Essentially, this legislation would enable the president to divert from the criminal justice system, and thus to divert from the protections of the Constitution, any person he pleases. And that person, under this terrifying bill, would have no recourse to a judge to require the president either to file charges against him or to set him free.
Can you imagine an America in which you could lose all liberty — from the presumption of innocence to the right to counsel to fairness from the government to a jury trial — simply because the president says you are dangerous?
Nothing terrified or animated the Founders more than that. The Founders, who wrote the Constitution, had just won a war against a king who had less power than this legislation will give to the president. But to protect their freedoms, they wrote in the Constitution the now iconic guarantee of due process. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Note, the Founders used the word “person.” Thus, the requirement of due process must be accorded to all human beings held by the government — not just Americans, not just nice people, but all persons. When Lincoln tried to deny this during the Civil War, the Supreme Court rejected him and held that the Constitution guarantees its protections to everyone that the government restrains, no matter the crime, no matter the charge, no matter the evidence, no matter the danger.
If this legislation becomes law, it will be dangerous
for anyone to be right when the government is wrong. It will be
dangerous for all of us. Just consider what any president could get away
with. Whom would he make disappear first? Might it be his political
opponents? Might it be you?
COPYRIGHT 2011 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM.
Read more by Andrew P. Napolitano
- What If We Have Only Memories of Freedom? – May 23rd, 2012
- Is There a Drone in Your Backyard? – May 16th, 2012
- What Constitutes a Fair Trial? – May 10th, 2012
- The President’s Private War – May 4th, 2012
- Is the CIA in Your Kitchen? – March 21st, 2012





Andy
December 1st, 2011 at 4:21 am
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me
Learn from history!!!
atm
December 1st, 2011 at 8:19 am
Hey I agree with this idea quite a bit, we have been promoting this type of freedom all around the world for a long time and it is time for Americans who have said nothing or promoted disappearances in other countries to practice it at home. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
skulz fontaine
December 1st, 2011 at 9:09 am
It will be interesting to see how the Supremes rule on this outrage. I'm willing to bet that our lickspittle Congress passes this freaking nightmare AND Dear Obama will sign it into law. Yeah yeah, the Obama said he'd veto it. Bullsh*t! Thus it will fall to the Supremes maybe.
Jack
December 1st, 2011 at 10:04 am
Arm yourselves and shoot back.
jason Calley
December 1st, 2011 at 10:06 am
Well, skulz, if the Supremes know what is good for them, they will rule in favor of the new Presidential power. If by some chance they don't then THEY get disappeared, and the next appointed Supreme will be a little smarter.
That is how power works.
Jeanette
December 1st, 2011 at 10:39 am
They can only do what we allow them to do. We are congress' the president's bosses. I say we fire the lot of them. If you are sitting back waiting for one of the corrupt branches of the so called government to step in and do the Constitutionally correct thing, you're going to wind up in a concentration camp. And to those who maintain the US military won't do this, you're going to wind up dead or in a concentration camp.
curmudgeonvt
December 1st, 2011 at 11:57 am
"They can only do what we allow them to do."
Really? Since when? Remember Dubya? He won neither the popular vote or the electoral college (at least until his father's people made sure they really didn't look too closely at the contested states.)
The current polls (by several and differing sources) ALL indicate that the American public are overwhelmingly in favor of taxing the ultra-wealthy to close the deficit and not to mess with the Social Security and Medicare benefits. Overwhelmingly. Do you believe that Congress is actually going to act on the desires of the public? The polls also show that there is a majority of Americans who want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to end – now. What are the chances that is going to happen? Slim to none.
So, generally speaking, niavity is endearing in a young girl as they are not usually realists. Time to get real.
skulz fontaine
December 1st, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Hi jason:I think you are absolutely correct. Regular Americans are screwed. Oh yeah. Anyone know if you can get those spiffy Cuban cigars in Guantanamo?
Mr. Mojo
December 1st, 2011 at 1:39 pm
The Supreme Court has proven itself to be the most corrupt and anti-American of all three branches of government.
Mr. Mojo
December 1st, 2011 at 1:45 pm
John McCain is correct, our biggest enemies are domestic and they're in Washington DC.
RickR30
December 1st, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Not so sure about that. They've shot down attempts like these before. It will truly be an outrage if this time around they let it pass. The nerve MadMcCain and Levin the Leach have to sponsor this piece of garbage! I still want to know who really wrote it. If with this those two enemies of America don't lose their next election, I don't know what it will take.
Mike
December 1st, 2011 at 4:57 pm
McCain co-sponsored the bill in question. So you mean that you find it ironic that he was warning us about himself?
liveload
December 1st, 2011 at 6:03 pm
It will be these moments,
haunting reveries frozen in time.
We will mourn the soul of our land;
bent double under the weight of our pride,
cursing our path, looking backwards all the time;
to the vanishing footprints of the Great Republic.
Covered in the ashes of glory,
only visible to the senescent mind.
carroll price
December 1st, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Although the regime that took over following The War to Prevent Southern Independence agreed (for political reasons) to withdraw Federal troops from the Southern states, martial law has never officially come to an end. If this were not true, Ruby Ridge and Waco (to name only two such instances) could not have occurred, because under the US Constitution, the jurisdiction of Federal officials do not extend beyond the bounds of federal property. When possible, Washington has played along with the word-game and has encouraged the illusion of constitutional and individual rights, but since 1865, the US military has had the power to arrest and detain American citizens anytime they feel like it. The great newspaper editor H. L. Mencken expressed it this way; "The people of the North and South entered the War as sovereign citizens of their respective States, but they came out of the War as subjects of a central government, and what they lost they have never got back."
john
December 1st, 2011 at 7:44 pm
How would it get to the Supremes? Is there any requirement that anybody be notified after someone is disappeared? Would they have right to a lawyer? No plaintiff no case.
Guest
December 1st, 2011 at 8:05 pm
What is the big deal?! As we speak, police can arrest anyone and then lie in court to have them locked forever. Why not the military, too?