Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Safety

We can dance if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't dance and if they don't dance
Well, they're no friends of mine
--Men Without Hats

Judge Nap frames the recent scandals surrounding the Obama administration in the context of safety versus freedom. Government is legalized force. Because everything it does employs that force to either prohibit or compel, government interferes with freedom. Everything government owns it has taken from others.

It is possible, however, that a small amount of government could extend freedom. If it is limited to helping individuals defend their person and property from aggression by others, then people may be more free than if they had to spend all of their time defending themselves.

The framers understood this concept and put forth a constitutional design that restrained what the federal government could do. The founding principle, as famously stated by Patrick Henry, was freedom over safety.

What we have today is a central government that regularly does the opposite. Bombing Libya, running guns to Syria, the Patriot Act, et al. are commonly justified in the name of keeping people safe--even if it means compromising individual liberty.

This administration is doing nothing new in principle; it is merely escalating policies initiated by previous administrations.

But this does not absolve this president of blame. If you inherit bad policies, then you cease them. You do not preserve or escalate them.

As the Judge observes, a president who keeps us safe but not free is not doing his job.