Chad Perrin: SOB

22 November 2007

Run away from scary things — but where?

Filed under: Liberty — apotheon @ 03:56

Every now and then, conversation begins anew in some corner of the Internet to which I pay attention on the subject of expatriating. That is, I occasionally become aware of discussions of moving the hell out of the ol’ US of A, specifically in response to changing political circumstances. Sometimes I’m a part of the discussion. Sometimes I’m not.

The most recent instance was the news that District of Columbia v. Heller has been accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States for review and ruling. The upside: the 9th District Court of Appeals decided that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that it further applies to the District of Columbia despite the fact DC is not technically a “State”. The result is that the blanket handgun ban and the prohibition against keeping assembled, functional firearms in one’s home in DC are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, one hopes, will uphold that ruling — or, at the very least, the part of it that applies to an individual right to keep and bear arms. The downside: there’s always the possibility that the left-wingnut activist contingent on the Supreme Court will win out, thus leading to a ruling that the Second Amendment is essentially meaningless. The SCOTUS might join the ranks of branches of federal government that are hell-bent on gutting the Bill of Rights.

The discussion that ensued was reminiscent of earlier iterations of such a conversation. In this case, it focused around an idea something like this:

Where the heck would we go, that would be any better in the long run, if the SCOTUS decides to erase the protections of the Second Amendment?

This has gotten me thinking:

We’ve recently seen the indefinite suspension of the power of the courts to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus. We’ve seen laws passed intended to undermine the right of citizens to be secure in their persons, papers, et cetera. We’ve seen creation of torture camps, declarations of the power of the Executive to ignore Legislative authority, and proposed bills that would allow such frightening authority as that of summarily revoking US citizenship.

Think about this for a moment. All of that came to pass during the tenure of the Bush Administration and a Republican-dominated Congress.

During most of the time that I have been politically aware, the Democrats have by far been the greater threat to the sanctity of the Bill of Rights. Sure, there have always been these lurkings about the fringes from the Republican Party, trying to impose some kind of Christian morality limit on the Constitutional protection of the right of free speech in the First Amendment, but it was really a fringe thing that few people had any reason to expect would go anywhere.

Most of the people claiming the Republican Party was attempting to censor things were just complaining that federal tax money should be spent on male nudity in photographic art forms just as much as on still life paintings, if not more so, and similar matters that really don’t have very bloody much to do with the First Amendment.

Most of the people claiming the Republican Party was opposing principles of equal protection were affirmative action proponents or were fighting to improve the equal protection status of gays — which is important, to be sure, but is also not much of a battle in the long run, since I have a hard time even conceiving of the idea that such true equality under the law will not inexorably come to pass, as long as we keep the (at least rough) observance of the Bill of Rights intact in our government.

The worst threats to liberty in this nation have been those that struck at the root of the tree of liberty as it flourishes here: the Bill of Rights. The single most concerted, long-term, determined, and widespread attacks on the Bill of Rights were the left-wing attacks on the Second Amendment.

None of this has gotten any better. How bad is it, then, that the Republican Party has come to be the worst enemy of the Constitution — and, specifically, the Bill of Rights — by actually becoming so much worse than it was that its danger to liberty surpasses the previously superior level of opposition to individual liberty of the Democratic Party? It would be nice to see the Republicans take the lead in the fight against individual liberty because the Democrats stopped fighting so hard, and their efforts fell behind those of the Republicans, but that is not what has happened. Instead, the Republican Party has, by and large, redoubled its efforts, compounding the problems already existing, adding to them, increasing the danger to the rights of the individual to absurd, previously unseen levels.

. . . and yet, it all looks to be reversible, at least in theory. The last line of defense against the depredations of corrupt and evil politicians in the Legislative and Executive branches of government are those stalwarts of the SCOTUS, in the Judicial branch. Sometimes it takes a long time for something to get that far, to get overturned as unconstitutional. Sometimes, it gets reversed before it gets to that point, thanks to the mercurial nature of the Legislative and Executive branches. When the Supreme Court judges something unconstitutional, however, that tends to remain the standard for the future for generations to come.

It takes much, much longer to overturn Supreme Court precedent than for the Supreme Court to get around to ruling some asinine, bone-headed law from Congress unconstitutional. Part of the reason for that is the simple fact that no branch of government tends to change its collective mind any faster than a significant number of its decision-making members get replaced, which can happen in as little as two years in Congress and four in the Presidency under normal circumstances — while Supreme Court positions can last literally a lifetime without any likelihood of removal from office. Even when the entire makeup of the SCOTUS has changed, new Supreme Court Justices are loath to reverse the decisions of their forebears, as the power of judicial precedent is traditionally one of the most enduring in government.

Thus, we’re seeing a circumstance where a great many people are biting their nails in anticipation of what will come of District of Columbia v. Heller. On one hand we have those who wish to see the Second Amendment interpreted such that it renders itself superfluous and pointless, no protection for anything, really — the same people who have been calling the Constitution a “living document” for decades, insinuating that what it says now doesn’t matter because we should change it to eliminate ancient barbarism like the right to keep and bear arms from its pages. On the other hand, we have those who hope the Supreme Court doesn’t kick one of the three pillars of liberty out from under our government’s founding document.

If it were not for the chance occurrence of the timing of this case coming to the Supreme Court, though, we’d still be sitting here in the midst of considering the horrors of the Republican Party succeeding in its recent apparent goal of becoming the new, worst enemy of liberty in the United States of America. Instead, our concern must be with the Schrödinger’s Cat that is a potential ruling on the Second Amendment by the SCOTUS.

Well. Things are certainly scary right now. The abolition in law of the Writ of Habeas Corpus has thus far appeared to be the worst, in terms of far-reaching negative effects on rights and liberties, this country has seen in the last century or so at least. It may soon be topped by a Supreme Court decision, if things go poorly. Frankly, if some Democrat or Republican (other than Ron Paul) gets elected to the Presidency, and the Supreme Court decides in favor of the DC firearms prohibitions, I’m inclined to pack up and leave — finally. That strikes me as kind of a breaking point, the point at which the groundwork has been laid for everything to finally go straight to hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, do not bother screwing around with any handbaskets.

So, the question then remains:

Where the hell would I go? What are the options?

I’m open to ideas.


  1. “Where the hell would I go? What are the options?”

    Very good questions.

    If you have any very good answers I’d like to know.

    I’m reminded of the time I was a Deputy Foreman on a Federal Grand Jury. The Assistant US Attorney (AUSA) brought a gun case before us. The police had arrested a disabled vet in his apartment. He had no legs and was in a wheelchair. They busted him for being in possession of a sawed-off shotgun. There was no evidence of drugs in the house or anything else illegal.

    As a juror we could decide if a crime had been committed or not. I hold the belief that the weapons was solely for self-defense and as such was not a threat to law-abiding citizens. Of course I was the only juror that voted not to indict.

    After the indictment the AUSA asked if there was anyone who voted against it which he was NOT allowed to do. I told him that he couldn’t ask. The Foreman answered and pointed to me. I angrily said that I thought it was only for self-defense and that a handicapped, legless veteran didn’t pose much of a threat to society. The AUSA said, “Wait until you see the plans we have for ALL firearms”. Chilling words to me then and even more-so now.

    I believe that most people here don’t seem to have any idea of how much our freedoms and rights have changed. It’s scary. I also believe that most people won’t get out and vote because they don’t know how much things have changed.

    I tell everybody I have a chance to talk to that they need to investigate the issues Dr. Ron Paul stands for, decide for themselves and vote. I firmly believe that he’s our last hope for liberty.

    It’s sad that he doesn’t get the same face-time on TV as the rest of the candidates. They even block him out of the shots when they show a short clip on the news. Pathetic.

    Comment by AlphabetSoup — 23 November 2007 @ 04:55

  2. That must have been a downright frightening thing to experience. Hearing that come from the mouth of an AUSA would probably threaten to send me into a sputtering rage. I could easily imagine myself shouting something at him about the oaths of his office, my words colored by a few “oaths” of my own (read: four-letter words).

    I frankly worry about the day I find myself face to face with a government official with the unmitigated gall to say something like that to me. I wouldn’t want to do anything impulsive that accomplishes nothing useful, but gets me thrown in jail — like hitting the guy.

    Comment by apotheon — 24 November 2007 @ 12:30

  3. The impression that I get is that the rest of the world is even less free. So there is nowhere to go, unless you want to create your own island nation or blast off into space.

    Comment by sosiouxme — 25 November 2007 @ 09:32

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

All original content Copyright Chad Perrin: Distributed under the terms of the Open Works License