Rescind Emergency Powers!

August 21, 2005 at 03:26 PM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments

In my last post I spoke of very current legislation. Today I wish to bring to attention something of a much more historical nature. In this country we have a terrible habit of introducing legislation that benefits us now and forgetting about it later once we took care of whatever it was that peice of legislation was about. In the most benign sense this is why we have so many so called "blue laws" still in effect which no one seems to care about, and in the most serious instance we have emergency powers. It is this latter part that I wish to bring to light.

  • March 1933: Franklin D. Roosevelt declares a national state of emergency.
  • So does Harry Trueman on December 16, 1950
  • So does President Nixon on March 23, 1970 and again on August 15, 1971
Over 72 years later, we are still officially in a state of emergency. Not one of the above emergency power acts/orders have been declared "over." And why would they? They provide for all three of the branches of government sweeping and practically absolute power. Once they get the power, why would they give it up? Now, you might say, well obviously we're out of the Great Depression. THAT emergency is over. Well, in 1973, Senate report 93-549 declared that "Since March the 9th, 1933, the united States has been in a state of declared national emergency." That was Congress themselves acknowledging the fact that these powers haven't gone away. That same report realized that over 470 federal laws were currently enabled by these acts. Countless more have been so enabled since 1973. In light of my last post, I have promised myself that I will write a letter a month to my representatives. So, without further ado, here is my first letter. Please take this letter and send it to your representatives as well. I grant anyone public domain usage of the following letter, take it as it is (but put your name and your representative), or personalize it as you see fit.

Ryan McGuire
(address removed)
08/21/05

Senator Robert Bennett
2390 West Highway 56, Suite 4B
Cedar City, UT 84720
Phone: (435) 865-1335
Fax: (435) 865-1481

Mr. Bennett,

I wish to express to you my concern for something that is of great importance to our continued prosperousness and security as a nation and as a republic.

In March of 1933 president Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a national state of emergency in response to the Great Depression and on March 9, 1933 Congress passed the Emergency Banking Relief Act. Three other declarations of emergency have been invoked since:

  • President Truman on December 16, 1950
  • President Nixon on March 23, 1970
  • President Nixon on August 15, 1971

These states of emergency have yet to be officially rescinded. Each of them have provided for our president extraordinary powers. They have allowed him to violate our rights as sovereign citizens and have breeched his trust in the Constitution. Congressmen James Beck knew this right away after the passage of the 1933 Act:

"I think of all the damnable heresies that have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law, even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lip-service, but the result is the same."

In Senate report 93-549 in 1973 it was acknowledged that "Since March the 9th, 1933, the united States has been in a state of declared national emergency."

I am afraid that if our government continues to usurp power that is not through a constitutional means and that if we remain in a constant state of emergency, we cannot maintain the individual liberties that we have fought for so dearly.

By not rescinding these emergency acts, I fear that it sets a dangerous precedent that the executive branch of our government can usurp whatever power they feel like, going so far as to ignore the constitution and the checks that it should properly place on it. These usurpations even go so far as declaring war, seizing property, instituting martial law, restricting travel of peaceful citizens, and regulating private businesses when he has no constitutional authority to do so.

Our Founding Fathers properly saw the limitations the government should have against these kinds of forces. They are expressly written in our Constitution as well as the rest of our founding documents. Benjamin Franklin put it very succinctly:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I urge you to consider where these dangerous trends may take us in the future. Please understand the importance of rescinding these four states of emergency and all of their accompanying legislation. Please take action to return our country to a state of peace and respect for individual liberty.

Sincerely,

(signed Ryan McGuire)

Ryan McGuire

Here is a Microsoft Word formatted version

Update Aug 22: I have sent off my letter to Senators Bennett and Hatch, Congressmen Mathesen, and George Bush himself. I will let you know as soon as I recieve any response from them.

To find out your representatives you can find out on the GovTrack website (the easiest way is to enter your nine digit zip code)

Read and Post Comments

Summer of Woe and Indolence

August 19, 2005 at 09:00 PM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments

This Summer, more legislation and statutes have disgraced this republic we call the United States of America then in all of my 24 years, and possibly in all of it's history. The worst part of it all though is this: I have been reading it after the fact. I am greatly disturbed that these decisions have been made by our political leaders, but even more so by my indolence towards finding out and my lack of doing anything to prevent it. These are but a few of the things that I have felt remorse for not doing a better job of forseeing and doing anything about:

  1. H.R. 1268 - The Emergency spending bill and 'REAL' ID act.
  2. Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)
  3. The Patriot Act version 2.0
  4. Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005
  5. The Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. City of New London
You can read about these all over the web at the moment, but here are just a few of the worst bits of each:
  1. H.R. 1268: See my blog entry.
  2. CAFTA: This bill was passed in Congress during a late night session in late July. The proponents of the bill broke the house rules and extended the voting period which had alread expired (with the bill voted down). They proceeded to bribe and steal as many votes as they could by promissing subsidies and benefits for the other representative's states. One estimate by a friend of Representative Ron Paul stated that these promises equate to over $50 billion in completely unrelated promises. These promises just get tacked onto our, the taxpayers bill. I'm all for free trade, but do we really need over one hundred pages to mention that we should have free trade? It must be a lot more than it is purpoted to be.
  3. Patriot Act 2.0: I hope you know about this one. This was passed briefly after the attacks on the east coast on September 11th, 2001. It was passed very quickly and without much thought about anyone's personal liberties. It was designed to combat 'terrorism.' The only good thing about the act was that it had sunset clauses. That the provisions it specified would end. Well here we are, in the middle of an ongoing war with Iraq, London get's bombed, twice. On the very day of the second London bombings, the Patriot Act's provisions are made permanent. That is, all but two of them. Those two are renewed for another 10 years. So, Those things that were passed in October of 2001 were thought so incredibly necessary to fight terrorism that that they would suspend most of the personal protections guaranteed by our constitution, are now found to be even more important now than they were before to make them permanent? It sounds to me more like the Patriot act is no longer so controversial in the minds of most. People have forgotten, people have thought to themselves, well it hasn't affected me at all, so it must be working. Even after we are are through with Iraq, even after the 'War on terrorism' is long forgotten, those provisions will still be in effect. By that time, probably most people will assume that that's the way it's always been, that 'Government knows best'.
  4. Energy tax incentives: The energy industry is probably one of the most profitable industries in the world. Everyone uses it, and very few provide it (what some would call a government sanctioned monopoly, some would call a cartel.) However, George Bush sees them differently. He sees them struggling to make ends meet. Among some of the more extravegant subsidies of this bill are:
    • Over $2.9 billion alone is set aside in subsidies for the coal industry.
    • A traffic light in Canoga Park, CA receives $100,000 in funding.
    • A bridge to be built in Alaska, spanning from the mainland to an island with a population of fifty: $223 million.
  5. Kelo v. City of New London: Of all of these, this is probably the most blatant overriding of people's rights. The Supreme Court decided in June that it's OK for someone to take your house away from you as long as it's within the economic best interest of the community. Yes, the 5th ammendment does say that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation", but do you really think that this is what they meant? If my house can be taken away at any moment, do I really own it? Unfortunately, no.
So, this summer I watched as these things passed me by. Sure, I wrote a few letters to my Senators and Cogressmen expressing my distaste for what they had done, but what good will that do? I vow to be more proactive from now on in finding out about this stuff before it happens. I promise that when I do, I'll bring it to your attention as well. Watch this space, because Ryan is through feeling bad about past mistakes. Ryan is pissed off and ready to take action. I know exactly where I draw the line. I will take back what liberty is rightfully mine. *Ryan
Read and Post Comments

Government gas cartel enforced... After taxes!

June 03, 2005 at 03:34 AM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments

Uncle Sam's Cartel
As if government taxes weren't enough, Maryland has decided (circa 2001) that they can tell a gas station what price they can and can't sell their gas for.

Apparently Maryland has legislated that a gas station can not sell gas for lower than what they pay for it. While maybe that's general good business sense, what right does the government have to mandate a price in the first place? The way I see it, they already taxed it. They already got their say (regardless if the tax was right in the first place). As long as the gas station could afford to do it, it sounds like a solid competitive business strategy. I honestly don't care if it pisses off the other gas stations in town, I'll buy from whoever has the cheapest gas prices this week.

Maryland is not only allowing price fixing, this time they are actively involved in a cartel by any reasonable definition of the word. Non-government affiliated organizations would be held accountable to anti-trust laws, but when the government does it themselves... who's to keep them accountable?

Read and Post Comments

I like bumper stickers...

May 27, 2005 at 05:06 PM | categories: enigma curry, liberty rants | View Comments

... they express so much in so little space:
Libertarian Bumper Sticker

Read and Post Comments

How I live my (libertarian) life

May 25, 2005 at 01:14 AM | categories: liberty rants | View Comments

Libertarian Party Logo
A lot of people I know, know me as a libertarian. I have realized recently, that many people have no idea what that means. Occasionally it is because they have never even heard the term libertarian before, however more often it is because of the limitations a single word description carries.

So let me clarify.

I would classify myself as an anarcho-capitalist libertarian. The reasons for this are:

  1. I have sole dominion over my own life.
  2. I have no right to forcibly interfere with the life of another, without them first doing so to me.
From those two beliefs, I come to these conclusions:
  • All humans have an unlimited ability to contract. Where a contract is defined to be a mutual, explicit, agreement.
  • Contracts, by definition, cannot be initiated by coercion or force.
  • That any form of government is power and force over it's population. Absolute liberty does not and cannot exist under a government. (Note: I do not favor absolute liberty either, see point 2 above.)
  • There are only two types of government. Those which derive power through force, and those which derive power through contract by those it governs.
  • All forms of power over an individual are valid and binding, only if it is in effect by mandate of contract, not force.
  • This means the following (this is non-exhaustive. It's here to show my point):
    • No one gets to take my money unless I give them permission. This includes the government.
    • I have no right to the money of anyone else unless they wish to give it to me or they are contracted to give it to me. This is also true even if the government steals it for me through "taxes" and gives it to me through "welfare" or "grants" (That last part I have failed to refuse in the past. That is something I hope never to fail again.)
    • No one gets to take my time or services unless I draw up a contract with them. This includes a government draft. If I don't give them permission, it is slavery.
    • As long as I don't violate #2, I can do anything I want to in my own home. This means the government can't tell me what I can and can't take into my own body. I didn't give them permission to tell me I can't smoke marijuana, but if they do anyway, then the power they have is not valid and not binding.
    • I have the right to defend myself by any means necessary (again without violating #2). This means I can buy a gun. Any type of gun. I don't have to get some permission slip from someone to get one either, because I didn't give them permission to require one of me in the first place.
    • I can live with whomever I want to. I can marry anyone I choose. Again, I don't need a permission slip. To put it another way: I and the person I love can contract together on any terms we see fit. The government has no authority to grant me a "marriage license".
     
    All libertarians believe at least some of what I just wrote, but an anarcho-capitalist one should believe in all of it, for an anarcho-capitalist libertarian believes the following:
    • Because governments are force over individuals, individuals would be better off if no government existed at all.
    • If no government existed, individuals would be free to exercise sole dominion over their own lives. This essentially means they would be able to hold allodial title to land and other forms of property. If you have allodial title, you own it, and no one has any other claim to it. No taxes, no rent.
    • If the above two were the state of things, then and only then, would a true free market emerge. With liberty from government regulation, and complete title to property, all transfers of wealth would be voluntary. No coercion (or outright theft) would be possible (and gotten away with that is).

    Many I have talked to are put off with the anarcho part of anarcho-capitalist. Yes, it does mean anarchy. Anarchy does not mean chaos, nor does it mean disorder. Governments are chaos. Governments are disorder. Anarchy is the absence of both. Many people see anarchy as a world where the Mafia and rival gangs take control of the world. While there is always the risk of someone to take over a people by force, anarchy means the complete absence of all forceful agencies, whether they are traditional governments or rouge gangs. If a society is terrorized, then the society is not in a state of anarchy.
    Even if multiple organizations were all fighting for control and not one group ultimately controlled, this would be a polyarchy and not an anarchy.

    Another objection I receive is something like this: "You must believe in a utopian society where everyone is nice to each other and believes everything you believe in. If not, it wouldn't work."

    I believe that if such a society did exist, one without government that is, we would not see a vast change from day to day life. The free-market would take control of all the roles that people demand of government now. People that did not follow rule #2 would again be dealt with by the free market. Someone stole from you? A free market version of justice would emerge, a collection agency would extract retribution on your behalf for a profit (Either by an insurance policy taken out prior to the theft, or even afterward for a percentage of the losses recouped.) For a good example of how this would work take a look at this page on Justice in Anarchy.

    Not all libertarians go this far. About half are so-called Minarchist Libertarians. The society that they would propose I am a full supporter of. What I have written here are things that I have realized must be the rational and ultimate outcome of pure libertarian thought.

    In an attempt to define libertarianism, albeit a bit generally and humorously, Dr Kenneth Bisson wrote: Libertarianism is what your mom taught you: behave yourself and don't hit your sister.

    I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, "That government is best which governs not at all" - Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau;
    Further reading:
    Read and Post Comments

    « Previous Page -- Next Page »