“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

“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

"The definition of liberty I use is the same one..."

"The definition of liberty I use is the same one that was accepted by Thomas Jefferson and his generation. It is the understanding derived from the great freedom tradition... This is the agenda I embrace, and one that I believe all Americans should embrace." -Pages XI & XII of Liberty Defined

"Some people claim that the doctrine of states' rights..."

"Some people claim that the doctrine of states' rights, one of Thomas Jefferson's central principles, has been responsible for racism.  But racism, a disorder of the heart, can become trenched in any political environment, whether highly centralized like Hitler's Germany or highly decentralized like our own country.  In Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke with delight of the process by which governments around the world were becoming more centralized, with states and local governments having less and less power.  It was a trend  he wanted to see continue in Germany, in order to build "a powerful national Reich" in which the central government could impose its will without having to worry about recalcitrant states.  Hitler wrote:  "National Socialism as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries, and to educate in its ideas and conceptions.  Just as the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of our fatherland.  The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German nation."

No form of political organization, therefore is immune to cruel abuses like the Jim Crow laws, whereby government sets out to legislate on how groups of human beings are allowed to interact with one another.  Peaceful civil disobedience to unjust laws, which I support with every fiber of my being, can sometimes be necessary at any level of government.  It falls upon the people, in the last resort, to stand against injustice no matter where it occurs.

In the long run, the only way racism can be overcome is through the philosophy of individualism, which I have promoted throughout my life.  Our rights come to us not because we belong to some group, but our rights come to us as individuals.  And it is as individuals that we should judge one another.  Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby individuals are treated not on their merits but on the basis of group identity.  Nothing in my political philosophy, which is the exact opposite of the racial totalitarianism of the twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking.  To the contrary, my philosophy of individualism is the most radical intellectual challenge to racism ever posed." Pages 63 & 64 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

"..."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