Wednesday, June 12, 2013

The Constitution Doesn't Guarantee Safety, It Guarantees Privacy

Activist Post

Obama says Americans can't have "100 percent security and 100 percent privacy".

This is obviously a false choice and an admission that he knowingly violates the rights of U.S. citizens.

Obama, like Bush before him, claims his most important job is to keep the American people safe.  Not true.  His job is to uphold and defend the Constitution which guarantees the privacy of all citizens but makes no mention of "safety" or "security". In fact, if war must be waged to defend America, that power rests with the Congress. The president then directs that war.

Okay, enough with the lesson. Everyone knows that this president, as well as the previous ones, violated the Constitution. The question is, do enough people care?

Judging by recent polls, at least half of Americans are so afraid of terrorists that they are okay with the government snooping on all of their communications and financial and health records. While the majority might say that domestic surveillance by the government is OK "within limits," it merely shows how susceptible most people are to the propaganda that there is some middle ground to be attained.

Middle ground and compromise are just fine in most areas of politics, but Constitutional principles are non-negotiable. These principles are there precisely so that the scale isn't a sliding one where more oppression is acceptable during certain times, then presumably returns back to some state of "normal" when the "threat" has passed.

Let's keep in mind that the threat of terrorism is designed to never pass; and the threat from a government using this threat to increase its control over the population is as guaranteed as the sun rising and setting.

The 'Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave'?  What a joke. People who would seek compromise on the essential principles upon which the country was founded are a sad excuse for Americans.

Americans, by majority or by government officials, don't possess the power to take away the rights guaranteed to individuals under the Constitution no matter how afraid they are.

Read other articles by Activist Post Here


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

There is no need for "a debate". Neither the government nor a majority of the population has the authority to take natural rights from individuals. To do so is tyranny regardless on how the media packages it.

Hide Behind said...

Agree there is no need for debate and that is about as far as any american can think.
They know not what next when their mini tissy tantrums are ignored and instead they are given permission to fuck each other, smoke dope and read what type poisons tjey are eating out of their microwaved or canned artificial society.
Some Public College unemployable any where but at non profits and gov window programs will aid to make it safe all for free.
The Second Amendment is for when the ballot and public demonstrations of grievances are ignored, but that does not mean just start shooting.
Remember our national ancestrrs used tar feathers and demonstrated right upon those who were oppressing them.
Hell thry did't fire a shot until directly attacked by royalty todays republicans democrats quilings are their counterparts and not one British of Blood got harmed.
Tar is cheap but feathers are hard to come by but any one can afgord an 8' 4x4 for them to ride upon.
That reminds me of nothing of import;
Just where and the hell are all those hundreds of millions of chicken feathers going.
They have not yet geneticly modified into featherless chickens just hprmonaly unbalanced ones that geneticly change humans.
Are the feathers edible and part of chicken McNuggets.
When I was kid slept on feathetbed and had feathet pillows but today don,t know of any manfactured.
Are they pulverized to feedback to chickens likemost non edible portions are?.
I know where the featherless bariety of two legged vhickens are, do you?

Anonymous said...

Statist gonna state.

GrannyTenderstone said...

but really, does anybody believe there is such a thing as privacy? really? it's been long gone, and being on the internet or the phone etc. isn't going to help protect your privacy, or whatever you wish to hide. I BEG them to come after me, they wouldn't dare, they'd be too embarrassed by what I have to dish out. This is just another case of fearmongering and perhaps Obama bashing/hatred too. He's powerless, and taking orders from people he cannot get out from under, all presidents are. a handful of people own the world and everybody and everything in it. all we can do is work with what we're stuck with until somebody figures out how to put those handful of people out of business. But if you ALLOW yourselves to be distracted with this stuff, that won't happen. The longer they can keep you focused on this, the more they get away with. I have nothing to hide, do you? I mean really, aren't we supposed to be more courageous than that? this seems like a big deal to most, because they aren't digging deeply enough, or contemplating with logic enough. It's a game and they've got you playing it exactly as they wish you to play. Don't allow it!! BEG THEM TO SPY ON YOU. bring it on!!
or just be a tool for the propaganda machine. Ironic i know but that's what it really is, no offense intended, just trying to show you the ADDITIONAL side, because everything has MORE THAN TWO SIDES to it, the powerful only want you to BELIEVE there are only two sides, but I suppose I should be training people to see things from ADDITIONAL perspectives, because there is a front door, a back door, and always AT LEAST one side door to every issue. ALWAYS. so ALWAYS look for the OTHER parts of the story. It's never either/or. It's never Us vs. Them. If you don't have AT LEAST a third perspective, you're still not liberating yourselves!

dale said...

The Constitution gives as a primary function of government to "promote...and provide...for the general Welfare." The general Welfare most certainly includes public safety as a basic element.

I am totally against government secrecy and the fake War on Terror, but it is fundamental that safety and liberty have to be balanced to have either. Total freedom (ie lack of laws or enforcement) creates a very dangerous situation, from Hobbes to Somalia. Total security creates a very sterile environment, witness totalitarian institutions like prisons and the military.

To have both, we must balance both. In my view, security arises from being respected and trusted, and govt secrecy undermines this option; liberty requires a legal and enforcement structure that protects basic rights, including the right to be free of searches without good cause.

Absolutist either/or thinking, as in the premise of this article, will make a workable balance impossible and thus works to lessen both safety and freedom.

If you are afraid, you are not free.
If you are totally controlled, you are not free.
Freedom requires a basic level of security which is based on positive motivation (trust/respect), not suspicion and secrecy.

That's my slightly different view.

Anonymous said...

Believe slight majority who agrees w/total surveillance op are Fearful of being labeled domestic terrorists. Maybe they are subconsciously processing potential terror of this regime. For a refresher course, read up on tactics of Bolshevik Revol.

Bring it on?? TSA has no probs molesting children & grannies w/nothing to hide. No, stolen info can be used as "leverage" against Anyone who doesn't follow their edicts, e.g. healthcare, taxes, property, employment, etc. Loopy and degrading tv programs are distractions! My personal rights are, front-and-center, A Major Concern!

Hide Behind said...

All nice to sit and pretend that the collection of data is not agenda driven and that asgenda is to dismiss ovrr 2/3 of manlind as being no more wortthy of live than saya dog or cat, pets to be kept mainly got their owners pleasure and smusements or as in dome cases tofay a lennel for profit.
Read Agenda 21 and yes it does sound mice and even I an old half dead human wpuld not mind living in a mini utopia, but it is a sterile world with no lfe other tham to live as effeciently as csn be done.
Before we became uncivilized yhe yerm drone had am ectended meaning of being a programmed human.
A lot like our spy/killer drones of today they have to be controlled by unseen mind and hands not their own.
That the drone will get a pattern designed not by what a Drone thinks it is possible of accomplishing. but what its controllers want it to accomplish
Human interactions can and are daily becoming more and more prefictable and open to manipulation by multiple sources.
Lights, colors, odors, key phrases. low freq and high freq response.You can literally test the predodents speech responce upon am aufience ny taking data from eye or boduovementd body temps and have a pre tty close approximation yo natoonal responsr.
This is the future og mankind. at least 2/3 rds of iy.
Programmed humans for molitary or plumbers and toilet cleaners for the 1?3rds amusements and pleasures ad well as laborers.
You find it today in educational goals for the masses whrre your child hss public school public low level service training. charter schools and public private where the chosrn 1/3 are groomed to be managers of the productive sector employment fields and to be the UNSEEN UNNOTICED JANDS AND MIND CONTROLLERS of the 3/3 human drones.

jethro654 said...

The Constitution does not Guarantee privacy, our rights do. They are not "given" or guaranteed by anything other than the peoples will to stand up and keep them safe. The Constitution was designed to LIMIT the role of government, PERIOD. Not set out what we can or can not do, but to set out what the government can or cannot do. Our rights were there before the Constitution was ever written. It was enacted to prevent government from overstepping its bounds and if it did, lay a groundwork for what the people should do if that happened. The very reasons it was written are what has been happening the last 200+years. WE are the enforcers of our rights, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. IT works for US...NOT the other way around.

Roger Bernanke said...

Here is a copy of the entire text of the United States Constitution. Do a search for the word "privacy" and see how many results you get.

Brian Bonner said...

That is not how the Constitution works. The Constitution grants powers 2 the government & if it is not in The Constitution the central government was not granted the power by we the people. Hence all laws passed not pursuant to The Constitution are VOID, Not a Law & illegal to enforce

That said Read up on the 4th Amendment don't just read it The Bill of Rights were redundant as no where in the unamended Constitution did we grant the central govt the power to do any of it. If new technology or "times change" then you amend The Constitution not subvert it

Kyle Maxwell said...

The Constitution isn't magic, folks. It doesn't "guarantee" or "promise" you a single damn thing. It doesn't transform into a giant robot and start kicking ass if it's violated. It's words on a piece of paper, and as such is worth exactly as much as the attention that people pay to it.

If most Americans are willing to give up privacy for security, then that's the way it is. Don't like it? Move somewhere that isn't a Democracy, because around these parts, we go by majority rule. Sputter and whine ineffectually about it all you want, but it's how it is.

Anonymous said...

The fact that the Constitution doesn't contain the word "privacy" is meaningless. The 4th Amendment is clearly about protecting the citizenry from governmental invasions of privacy.

Nate Strand said...

@ Kyle Maxwell... do you work for the NSA? If not you are a sad and pathetic excuse of an American and the Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves after reading this crap: "If most Americans are willing to give up privacy for security, then that's the way it is. Don't like it? Move somewhere that isn't a Democracy, because around these parts, we go by majority rule. Sputter and whine ineffectually about it all you want, but it's how it is."

Nate Strand said...

@ Kyle Maxwell

"If most Americans are willing to give up privacy for security, then that's the way it is. Don't like it? Move somewhere that isn't a Democracy, because around these parts, we go by majority rule. Sputter and whine ineffectually about it all you want, but it's how it is."

If you truly believe that you don't deserve to call yourself an American, you are a shill for the Police State. After reading garbage like that the founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves.

Perhaps it is you that should leave? you can take the mindless horde of slaves that share the same belief as you with you. Maybe England is a good place? they have cameras everywhere to keep you extra safe.

Benjamin Franklin - "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

Anonymous said...

Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. -Benjamin Franklin

Selina said...

Just wondering...were you saying the same thing when W took all of our rights and privacy away in the name of national security?...big brother spying on us is nothing new...thanks to the Patriot Act, begun under "keep us safe"...

Post a Comment