As with many Americans, I celebrated Thanksgiving last month with my family, and I plan to celebrate Christmas with them this month. I also plan to celebrate another important event this month, one that rarely seems to garner much attention.
December 15 will mark the 214th anniversary of the adoption in 1791 of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These 10 amendments, now known as the Bill of Rights, are based upon a philosophy of individual liberty: that individuals have rights, that governments are instituted among people for the protection of those rights, that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and that the powers of government should be few and enumerated.
In many ways, the Bill of Rights represents what is best about the American experiment in governance. One of my colleagues notes that he sometimes asks people to list the virtues of America of which they are most proud. Respondents typically list items such as freedom of religion, the right of free speech, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to trial by a jury of one's peers, etc. He then explains that these virtues are related, in that they all reflect limitations on the power of government.
Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights and its Libertarian foundation have been under attack since virtually the moment the document was ratified. As Thomas Jefferson noted, the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. The power of the federal government has expanded to the point where it is involved in most aspects of our lives, including controlling what substances we can ingest for our health, safety, and comfort, determining wage rates we can offer our own labor, and regulating with whom we will associate in private commercial transactions.
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrrorist attacks, liberty-reducing legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act was passed in the name of the war on terrorism. Certain aspects of these measures, such as the push to use military tribunals to try certain types of suspects, have received substantial attention and condemnation. Unfortunately, other aspects, including efforts to expand the use of "National Security Letters" - a form of administrative subpoena that does not require judicial review - have been less well publicized.
I believe that many advocates of the PATRIOT Act and similar measures are well-meaning people who see such limitations upon our freedom as both necessary and temporary. Government officials responsible for protecting our security face a very difficult task. The people who would launch attacks against America generally don't play fair, and those charged with the task of defending our safety want all the help they can obtain in the effort to protect us.
However, it is precisely at times such as these, when it is asserted that the situation is grave and that our liberties must be curtailed in the name of security, that we must be most vigilant to protect our rights. Throughout American history there have been calls for limiting our freedom in the name of security during times of war and travail. Some of America's darkest moments were a result of such limitations. The one that comes most readily to my mind is the holding of thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry in internment centers during World War II.
Furthermore, many limitations supposedly adopted for reasons of national security remained in place long after the circumstances used to justify their adoption had ended. Also, some of these liberty-reducing measures were used to abridge the rights of citizens in areas unrelated to legitimate security concerns. For example, in 1933 Franklin Roosevelt justified flagrant violations of the liberty of the people via the imposition of a national "bank holiday" and gold confiscation by using an obscure law passed during World War I.
Of course, standing against liberty-reducing measures is not a pleasant task; defending liberty against government power rarely is. As Charles Beard suggested, one of the best ways to gain a reputation as a dangerous fellow is to go about using the very phrases that our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.
I hope I shall also be able to celebrate "Bill of Rights Day" on December 15, 2006. I hope it will be a day for celebrating a renewed dedication to the liberty represented by the Bill of Rights, rather than an occasion to lament the additional erosion of our freedom during the past year.
James W. Lark III is a professor at the University of Virginia and serves as a member of the Libertarian National Committee. He served as chair of the Libertarian Party from 2000 to 2002.
December 15 will mark the 214th anniversary of the adoption in 1791 of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These 10 amendments, now known as the Bill of Rights, are based upon a philosophy of individual liberty: that individuals have rights, that governments are instituted among people for the protection of those rights, that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and that the powers of government should be few and enumerated.
In many ways, the Bill of Rights represents what is best about the American experiment in governance. One of my colleagues notes that he sometimes asks people to list the virtues of America of which they are most proud. Respondents typically list items such as freedom of religion, the right of free speech, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to trial by a jury of one's peers, etc. He then explains that these virtues are related, in that they all reflect limitations on the power of government.
Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights and its Libertarian foundation have been under attack since virtually the moment the document was ratified. As Thomas Jefferson noted, the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. The power of the federal government has expanded to the point where it is involved in most aspects of our lives, including controlling what substances we can ingest for our health, safety, and comfort, determining wage rates we can offer our own labor, and regulating with whom we will associate in private commercial transactions.
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrrorist attacks, liberty-reducing legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act was passed in the name of the war on terrorism. Certain aspects of these measures, such as the push to use military tribunals to try certain types of suspects, have received substantial attention and condemnation. Unfortunately, other aspects, including efforts to expand the use of "National Security Letters" - a form of administrative subpoena that does not require judicial review - have been less well publicized.
I believe that many advocates of the PATRIOT Act and similar measures are well-meaning people who see such limitations upon our freedom as both necessary and temporary. Government officials responsible for protecting our security face a very difficult task. The people who would launch attacks against America generally don't play fair, and those charged with the task of defending our safety want all the help they can obtain in the effort to protect us.
However, it is precisely at times such as these, when it is asserted that the situation is grave and that our liberties must be curtailed in the name of security, that we must be most vigilant to protect our rights. Throughout American history there have been calls for limiting our freedom in the name of security during times of war and travail. Some of America's darkest moments were a result of such limitations. The one that comes most readily to my mind is the holding of thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry in internment centers during World War II.
Furthermore, many limitations supposedly adopted for reasons of national security remained in place long after the circumstances used to justify their adoption had ended. Also, some of these liberty-reducing measures were used to abridge the rights of citizens in areas unrelated to legitimate security concerns. For example, in 1933 Franklin Roosevelt justified flagrant violations of the liberty of the people via the imposition of a national "bank holiday" and gold confiscation by using an obscure law passed during World War I.
Of course, standing against liberty-reducing measures is not a pleasant task; defending liberty against government power rarely is. As Charles Beard suggested, one of the best ways to gain a reputation as a dangerous fellow is to go about using the very phrases that our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.
I hope I shall also be able to celebrate "Bill of Rights Day" on December 15, 2006. I hope it will be a day for celebrating a renewed dedication to the liberty represented by the Bill of Rights, rather than an occasion to lament the additional erosion of our freedom during the past year.
James W. Lark III is a professor at the University of Virginia and serves as a member of the Libertarian National Committee. He served as chair of the Libertarian Party from 2000 to 2002.
