Higgs on the Dead Letter

Robert Higgs on the presidents’ murder spree and Rand Paul’s filibuster:

The discussion related to Sen. Rand Paul’s recent filibuster seems in nearly every case to be premised on a misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution, the ostensible basis for any powers the president or his subordinates may lawfully exercise. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment states, ‘No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ This provision obviously prohibits the president or anyone else in the government from peremptorily killing anyone without due process of law. Note that this part of the Bill of Rights, like all of the others, does not apply only to U.S. citizens or, as Sen. Paul and others repeatedly put it, to ‘American citizens on U.S. soil.’ The Bill of Rights constrains the government across the board and provides areas in which all persons subject to its authority are to have freedom of action — or, at least, it purports to do so. Nothing in these provisions restricts them to U.S. citizens.

Democrats Would Still Be Filibustering

Like so many others I was happy to see coverage of Rand Paul’s filibuster yesterday, against the morally repugnant appointment of torture-advocate and drone promoter, John Brennan. Five minutes before the start of the filibuster Lew Rockwell referred to the Washington establishment as a “marble wedding cake of death.” What followed over the next twelve hours certainly confirmed the dark marriage of the two parties, as an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans waited on the Senate floor, hoping the junior senator from Kentucky would take his seat.

Ryan McMaken offered this analysis of the event, noting that for at least two reasons, it was a positive thing. In the first place it was a filibuster, and anything that gums up the works is almost always a net positive. Secondly, he argues, it “has been specifically used to oppose and discredit one of the worst abuses of the presidency in many years.” Specifically he meant the utterly reprehensible use of drone strikes abroad, as well as the claimed authority to use them against civilians far from any battlefield.

Radley Balko tweeted: “In an alternate universe, Sen. Obama just joined Sen. Paul’s filibuster against President McCain’s use of drones against U.S. citizens.” The Simple Voluntaryist asked whether Rand Paul would still have filibustered had Mitt Romney won the election. I’m less than optimistic that he would. However, it seems pretty clear that had the roles been reversed, and McCain was nominating some sociopath, the filibuster would have gone on much longer. This would be due to the Democrats’ steadfast concern for human rights, which has proven to be the most transparently partisan and wholly bankrupt effort, with few notable exceptions.

A Mockery of the Bill of Rights

Cross-posted from the Tenth Amendment Center blog:

If ever one needed a cogent example of why relying on the federal government to comply with the constitution and protect the liberties of the people is hopeless, the senate just gave one. Robert Wenzel reports over at his EconomicPolicyJournal that in a 79 to 12 vote, the senate rejected an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 (the actual name of the bill!), H.R.5949, that would have extended 4th Amendment protections to electronic communications.

Prior to the vote Rand Paul spoke on the floor urging passage of the amendment:

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people should be secure in their persons, houses and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Somewhere along the way, though, we became lazy and haphazard in our vigilance. We allowed Congress and the courts to diminish our Fourth Amendment protection, particularly when our papers were held by third parties.

I think most Americans would be shocked to know that the Fourth Amendment does not protect your records if they’re banking, Internet or Visa records. A warrant is required to read your snail mail and to tap your phone, but no warrant is required to look at your e-mail, text or your Internet searches. They can be read without a warrant. Why is a phone call more deserving of privacy protection than an e-mail?

This amendment would restore the Fourth Amendment protections to third-party records, and I recommend a yes vote.

Now, forget for a second that only 12 senators agree that warrants (which are of dubious merit in practice anyway) should be required for government agents to read your e-mail correspondence. Just consider the need to write laws in order to enforce existing laws. The Bill of Rights is a farce, as this episode clearly shows. If the 4th Amendment meant anything, there would be no need to amend an act amending another act, to protect the 4th Amendment!

Instead of hoping this kind of chicanery is going to do anything to defend the liberties of the people, states and local governments should interpose on behalf of citizens. Refusal to provide logistical support to federal authorities during investigations and raids will go a long way in combating this sort of breach of due process. If nothing else, it will send a strong message that such machinations are unacceptable.

Why Paul is Wrong on Pakistani Aid

Senator Rand Paul will introduce legislation next week to suspend aid to Pakistan until the government frees Dr. Shakil Afridi, an informant working for the CIA, who helped with the raid on Osama Bin Laden’s house. Though Paul was critical of aid in general, saying “Foreign aid has been an abysmal failure,” such efforts are really only half measures if the goal is to end aid. In fact, withholding aid in this way and promising to reinstate it afterwards only reinforces its legitimacy as foreign policy bribe money.

Aid to Pakistan shouldn’t be cut because their government has prosecuted an informant. Aid to Pakistan (and all other nations, for that matter) should be eliminated because it’s immoral. In the words of Ron Paul, “Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.”

This is another reason (on a growing list) of why Rand Paul’s philosophy is to Ron Paul’s philosophy, what CATO/Reason is to LewRockwell.com/The Mises Institute. That is to say, it’s an intellectual and ideological lightweight in the libertarian school of thought. It’s libertarianism that is grounded on a pragmatic or utilitarian foundation, as opposed to one that rests on morality and a consistent application of the non-aggression principle.