“Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely..."

“Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely, should all future presidents be able to act without regard to Congress or the Constitution simply by asserting “We’re at war”?

Toward the end of 2007, Senator Jeff Sessions declared, “Some people in this chamber love the Constitution more than they love the safety of this nation.  We should all send President Busy a letter thanking him for protecting us.” What kind of sheep must politicians take Americans for if they expect us to fall for creepy propaganda like this?” -Pages 124 & 125 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“It is time for us to wake up..."

“It is time for us to wake up.  We have allowed the president to abduct an American citizen [Jose Padilla] on American soil, declare him an “enemy combat” (a charge the accused has no power to contest, which is rendered by the president in secret and is unreviewable), detain him indefinitely, deny him legal counsel, and subject him to inhumane treatment.  [...]  Have we been so blinded by propaganda that we have forgotten basic American principles, and legal guarantees that extend back to our British forbears eight centuries ago?  This is an outrageous offense against America and her Constitution.  Claims that these powers will be exercised only against the bad guys are not worth listening to.” -Pages 121 & 122 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“A decent society never accepts or justifies torture...."

“A decent society never accepts or justifies torture.  It dehumanizes both torturer and victim, yet seldom produces reliable intelligence.  Torture by rogue American troops or agents puts all Americans at risk, especially our rank-and-file soldiers stationed in dozens of dangerous places around the globe.  It is not difficult to imagine American soldiers or travelers being taken hostage and tortured as some kind of sick retaliation for Abu Ghraib.  

Beyond that is the threat posed by unchecked executive power. [...] But the argument for extraordinary wartime executive powers has been made time and time again, always with bad results and the loss of our liberties.  That’s why it is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it.  The Founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergencies.” -Pages 119 & 120 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

“If this interpretation of AUMF were correct..."

“If this interpretation of AUMF were correct, moreover, parts of the Patriot Act would have been unnecessary.  Finally, given that FISA, the existing law, deals explicitly and specifically with intelligence gathering, while AUMF [Authorization to Use Military Force] says nothing at all about foreign intelligence, FISA would automatically trump AUMP as a matter of legal principle, even if the administration’s interpretation were correct.

The administration itself didn’t seem to take this argument seriously.  When asked why, if the administration considered FISA inadequate to its purposes, it had not sought to amend it, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales frankly testified that they didn’t think they would be able to win congressional approval for amendments to FISA.  So they proceeded with the program anyway.  [....] Why did they consider amending FISA in order to give themselves a power they supposedly already had?
....
What was the real reason for the program, then?  Who was targeted and why?  No answers to these questions have been forthcoming.  Bland assurances that our leaders are trustworthy and good, and would never abuse powers they have secretly exercised in defiance of the law, can hardly be taken seriously by those who believe in a free society.  Remember Jefferson’s cautionary words about confidence in men: we should be on our guard against our government officials, binding them down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.  Government surveillance of individuals has been abused in the past, and it has targeted political opponents and the politically unpopular.  That’s why the safeguards that were flaunted here were established in the first place.” - Pages 112 & 113 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"And let us not forget that the Constitution grants Congress..."

"And let us not forget that the Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws.  Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body.  Nor can the president legally sign any treaty that purports to do so.  Our Founders never intended for America to become entangled in global trade schemes, and they certainly never intended to have our domestic laws overridden by international bureaucrats." -Pave 99 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"Now, whatever its moral and philosophical attractiveness..."

"Now, whatever its moral and philosophical attractiveness, the free economy I have just proposed, in which no one is allowed to use government power to loot anyone else, is sometimes criticized as a "pro-business" philosophy that favors the well-to-do. This criticism could not be more off target.  As I have said, businessmen, too, want special favors from government and lobby energetically for all kinds of wealth transfers to themselves.  Very rarely does a business owner come to my congressional office to congratulate me on my fidelity to the Constitution.  They come by because they want something, and what they want is usually not authorized by the Constitution. 

I do not claim that businessmen as a class are underhanded or wicked, since I do not believe in making prejudicial generalizations about any group.  I am saying only that they are just as likely as anyone else to favor government intervention on their behalf.  I have nothing but respect and admiration for honest businessmen.  Their contributions to our society are indispensable and almost completely unsung.  The entrepreneur who risks everything he has in order to realize a dream- and improve our lives in the process - is engaged in a worthy and honorable pursuit that earns him precious little respect in our society." -Page 77 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"To be sure, the U.S. Constitution is not perfect. "

"To be sure, the U.S. Constitution is not perfect.  Few human contrivances are.  But it is a pretty good one, I think, and it defines and limits the scope of the government.  When we get into the habit of disregarding it or - what is the same thing - interpreting certain key phrases so broadly as to allow the federal government to do whatever it wants, we do so at our own peril.  We will wind up with a situation like the one we face right now, that few Americans are happy with.

I do not believe that most Americans want to continue down this path:  undeclared wars without end, more and more police-state measures, and a Constitution that may as well not exist.  But this is not a fated existence.  We do not have to live in this kind of America.  It is not too late to rally and recall our people to the Constitution, the rule of law, and our traditional American republic."  -Page 67 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"The Founding Fathers did not intend for every American neighborhood...."

"The Founding Fathers did not intend for every American neighborhood to be exactly the same - a totalitarian impulse if there ever was one- or that disputes over competing values should be decided by federal judges. This is the constitutional approach to deciding all issues that are not spelled out explicitly in our founding document: let neighbors and localities govern themselves.

The Founding Fathers would be astonished to observe how politicized our society has become, with every matter on which people differ becoming a federal issue to be resolved in Washington. Jefferson warned, "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." Are we listening?

In short, just as we should reject empire abroad, we should also reject it at home. One-size-fits-all social policy, dictated by unelected judges from an imperial capital, is not the system Americans signed on for when they ratified the Constitution, and they have never formally sanctioned such a thing." -Pages 62 & 63 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"One of the most contentious issues in our public life..."

"One of the most contentious issues in our public life over the past three and a half decades has been abortion.  As a physician, and in particular as an obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I have always had a special interest in the subject of abortion.  When I studied medicine at Duke Medical School from 1957 to 1961, the subject was never raised.  By the time of my medical residency at the University of Pittsburgh in the mid-1960s, though, wholesale defiance of the laws against abortion was taking place in various parts of the country, including my own.

Residents were encouraged to visit various operating rooms in order to observe the procedures that were being done.  One day I walked into an operating room without knowing what I was walking into, and the doctors were in the middle of performing a C-section.  It was actually an abortion by hysterotomy.  The woman was probably six months along in her pregnancy, and the child she was carrying weighed over two pounds.  At that time doctors were not especially sophisticated, for lack of a better term, when it came to killing the baby prior to delivery, so they went ahead with the delivery and put the baby in a bucket in the corner of the room.  The baby tried to breathe, and tried to cry, and everyone in the room pretended the baby wasn't there.  I was deeply shaken by this experience, and it hit me at that moment just how important the life issue was.
.....
The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution.  ...  the issue would revert to the states, where it constitutionally belongs. 
.....
To those who argue that we cannot allow the states to make decisions on abortion since some will make the wrong ones, I reply that this is an excellent argument for world government- for how can we allow individual countries to decide on abortion or other moral issues, if some may make the wrong decisions?  Yes the dangers of a world government surely speak for themselves. 

Let us therefore adopt the constitutional position, one that is achievable and can yield good results but that shuns the utopian idea that all evil can be eradicated.  The Founding Fathers' approach will not solve all problems, and it will not be perfect.  But anyone expecting perfection in this world is going to be consistently disappointed."  Pages 58-61 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"Where is it written in the Constitution," he [Daniel Webster] demanded..."

"Where is it written in the Constitution," he [Daniel Webster] demanded, "in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?"  The draft was irreconcilable with both the principles of a free society and the provisions of the Constitution.  "In granting Congress the power to raise armies," Webster explained, "the people have granted all the means which are ordinary and usual, and which are consistent with the liberties and security of the people themselves, and they have granted no others... A free government with arbitrary means to administer it is a contradiction; a free government without adequate provisions for personal security is absurdity; a free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription, is a solecism, at once the most ridiculous and abominable that ever entered into the head of man."
......
Young people are not raw material to be employed by the political class on behalf of whatever fashionable political, military, or social cause catches its fancy.  In a free society, their lives are not the play-things of government."  -Pages 56 & 58 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"In spite of its complete lack of constitutional foundation..."

"In spite of its complete lack of constitutional foundation, this belief that the president may take the country to war on his own authority, without consulting anyone, has become the conventional wisdom in both major parties, although there has been a modest backlash against it since the Iraq war.  Neoconservatives have been particularly eager to promote this deviation from the Constitution.  This, it seems, is their version of the "living" Constitution." -Page 52 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"During my public life I have earned the nickname Dr. No....."

"During my public life I have earned the nickname Dr. No, a reference to my previous occupation as a physician combined with my willingness to stand against the entire Congress if necessary to vote no on some proposed measure. (I am told I have been the sole "no" vote in Congress more often than all other members of Congress put together.) As a matter of fact, I don't especially care for this nickname, since it may give people the impression that I am a contrarian for its own sake, and that for some reason I simply relish saying no.  In those no votes, as in all my congressional votes, I have thought of myself as saying yes to the Constitution and to freedom." -Pages 49 & 50 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"Now, isn't our Constitution a "living" document that evolves..."

"Now, isn't our Constitution a "living" document that evolves in accordance with experience and changing times, as we're so often told?  No- a thousand times no.  If we feel the need to change our Constitution, we are free to amend it.  In 1817, James Madison reminded Congress that the Framers had "marked out in the [Constitution] itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest" - a reference to the amendment process.  But that is not what advocates of the so-called living Constitution have in mind.  They favor a system in which the federal government, and in particular the federal courts, are at liberty - even in the absence of any amendment- to interpret the Constitution altogether differently from how it was understood by those who drafted it and those who voted to ratify it. 

A "living" Constitution is just the thing any government would be delighted to have, for whenever the people complain that their Constitution has been violated, the government can trot out its judges to inform the people that they've simply misunderstood:  the Constitution, you see, has merely evolved with the times.

That's why on this issue I agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who says that those who give us a "living" Constitution are actually giving us a dead Constitution, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power." -Pages 48 & 49 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"..."Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution..."

"..."Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution," [Thomas] Jefferson advised us. "Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."  Jefferson was afraid, in other words, that we would allow our government to interpret the Constitution so broadly that we may as well be governed by a blank piece of paper.  The limitations the Constitution placed on the federal government had to be taken seriously if we expected to maintain a free society."  -Page 45 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"Much of the recent revival of interest in the Constitution centers around...."

"Much of the recent revival of interest in the Constitution centers around the Bill of Rights and the war on terror, a subject I discuss elsewhere in this book.  I could not be more sympathetic to these concerns.  However, Americans must remember that the Constitution was designed not merely to prevent the federal government from violating the rights that later appeared in the Bill of Rights.  It was also intended to limit the federal government's overall scope.  Article I, Section 8, lists the powers of Congress.  Common law held such lists of powers to be exhaustive.

According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, all powers not delegated to the federal government by the states (in Article I, Section 8) and not prohibited to the states in the Constitution (in Article 1, Section 10) are reserved to the states or to the people.  Thomas Jefferson held that this principle formed the very foundation of our Constitution.  It was a guarantee that the experience Americans endured under the British would not be repeated, and that political decisions would be made by their own local legislature rather than by a distant central government that would be much more difficult, if not impossible, for them to control." -Pages 44 & 45 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"The power of the executive branch, for instance, has expanded far beyond.."

"The power of the executive branch, for instance, has expanded far beyond what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned.  One mechanism that has strengthened it is the executive order, an instrument by which presidents have exerted powers that our Constitution never intended them to have.  An executive order is a command issued by the president that enjoys his authority alone, not having been passed by Congress.  Executive orders can have legitimate functions.  Presidents can carry out their constitutional duties or direct their subordinates by executive order, for instance.  But they can also be a source of temptation for ambitious presidents, since they can always try to get away with using them as a substitute for formal legislation that they know they cannot get to pass.  He can thereby circumvent the normal, constitutional legislative process. 

Executive orders were rare in the nineteenth century; for a president to issue even several dozen was unusual.  The first twentieth-century president to serve a full term, Theodore Roosevelt (who served two, in fact), issued over three thousand. 

This is a travesty against our constitutional system, and any president worthy of the office would absolutely forswear the use of executive orders except when he can show express constitutional or statutory authority for his action."  -Pages 41-43 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"In early American history the Constitution figured heavily..."

"In early American history the Constitution figured heavily in political debate.  People wanted to know, and politicians needed to justify, where the various schemes they debated in Congress were authorized in the Constitution.  In the twenty-first century, by contrast, the Constitution is like the elephant at the tea party that everyone pretends not to notice." -Page 41 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"... it is essential not to lose sight of the moral dimension of war..."

"... it is essential not to lose sight of the moral dimension of war, and the lengths to which Christian and later secular thinkers have gone over the centuries to limit and restrict the waging of war.  For well over a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what constitutes a just war.  This just-war tradition developed in the fourth century with Ambrose and Augustine but grew to maturity with Thomas Aquinas and such Late Scholastics as Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suarez.  The requirements for a just war varied to some extent from commentator to commentator, but those who wrote on the subject share some basic principles.  The war in Iraq did not even come close to satisfying them. 

First, there has to be an initial act of aggression, in response to which a just war may be waged.  But there was no act of aggression against the United States.  We are 6,000 miles from Iraq.  The phony stories we were told about unmanned drones coming to get us were, to say the least, not especially plausible. 

Second, diplomatic solutions had not been exhausted. They had hardly been tried.

Traditional just-war criteria also demand that the initiation of war be undertaken by the proper authority.  Under the U.S. Constitution, the proper authority is neither the president nor the United Nations.  It is Congress - but Congress unconstitutionally delegated its decision-making power over war to the president." -Pages 22 & 23 of The Revolution, A Manifesto