Federalist #84 vs. Bush

Habeas Corpus is the right to challenge your illegal imprisonment. See here.

In Federalist #84, Alexander Hamiliton quotes Blackstone explaining why the Right of Habeas Corpus is so important

The observations of the judicious Blackstone, [1] in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a man of life, Usays he,e or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government." And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas-corpus act, which in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution."[2]

It seems to me that Hamilton is making the point that the right of habeas corpus is an important check against tyranny.

In the Military Commissions act of 2006,(S. 3930) in section 7 according to the non-partisan CRS summary found at http://thomas.loc.gov it says

(Sec. 7) Amends federal criminal justice provisions to deny any court or judge jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of, or to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of, an alien detained outside the United States who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. Makes the provisions of this section effective upon enactment, and applicable to all cases, without exception, pending on or after enactment which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

It looks to me like the Bush Administration is abridging the writ of Habeas Corpus. Maybe it's legal. Maybe you could argue that the Constitution only applies to citizens. But it seems to me to be the beginning of a slippery slope. And it seems that at least Hamiliton was against it. And I'll side with the Founders any time.

Adams and Hamilton defending detainees in Cuba

Adams defended British soldiers
John Adams was a true patriot. He left his family and served his county untirelessly. Among his many accomplishments, he secured money for the American revolution, served as ambassador and was President of the United States. See here. An earlier but lesser known service that Admas undertook was to defend two British soldiers who were involved in the Boston Massacre.

The Boston Massacre occured in 1770 when a group of provoked British soldiers fired into a crowd of American civilians. See here. From all accounts, Adams put up a fine defense. John Adams later referred to the case as "the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country" See here. Why would a patriot such as Adams, who sacrificed so much for the revolutionary cause, be so proud of defending the enemy? In accepting the case, Adams said that the "last thing an accused person should want is council in a free country." Adams believed that in America, everyone deserved a trial, even our enemies.


Hamilton defended Tories
Alexander Hamilton was another patriot who defended unpopular people. His accomplishments include the following: serving with Washington in the Continental army, leading infantry against the British fort at Yorktown, writing many of the Federalist Papers urging the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and serving as the first secretary of the treasury. See here. Also here.

After the Revolutionary war, he practiced law and took cases where Tories were suing to get their houses back. See here. In addition, he published two letters under the name of "Phocion" which argued that disenfranchising loyalists could lead to tyranny and was unconstitutional. Hamilton, like Adams, represented unpopular people for principled reasons.

Detainees at Guatanamo Bay
The U.S. is holding suspected terrorists at a U.S. naval base in Cuba. They are our enemies much as the British and Tories were during the Revolutionary War. The Bush administration fought against giving those detainees a hearing on whether they deserve to be there. It took the U.S. Supreme Court to say that the U.S. courts have jurisdiction over the base and that the detainees could challenge their detention. Summary. Actual decision. Since the Supreme Court decision, the military has been conducting hearings. See here. Link to a recent congressional hearing regarding Guantanamo. Amnesty International's report that touches on Guantanamo Bay.

The fact that the Bush Administration was holding people without any type of a hearing would greatly offend these founding fathers. Both Adams and Hamilton represented people who were considered our enemies and who were vastly unpopular. Thus, I believe that if those two were alive today, they would not only be vocal critics of the administration's past policy, they would be down in Cuba themselves representing the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

End Social Security

As I read Bush's state of the union speech, I thought about social security. Here are some thoughts.

An obligation?
Social security has an implied commitment between generations. However,I don't feel responsible for somebody else's granparents, only my own family and others that I care about. I am willing to take care of my grandparents and my parents when they grow older, but I don't feel the same for total strangers. If I wanted to help out, I would freely donate to an organization that helped take care of older people. I'm sure the AARP could help me find such an organization.

Conversely, I don't expect money from total strangers to take care of me when I grow older. I will rely on my own retirement money or on my family. Hopefully, I will rely on my own money. As far as social security goes, I view it as another tax. I don't feel vested in it. Nobody asked me if I wanted to take part in this system. And if they did, I would politely say no because I feel that social security contributes to an entitlement mentality in America. Too many Americans focus on what is owed them and not enough on what their own responsibility is. I feel that my own responsibility is to take care of my own retirement and not depend on "daddy government" to take care of me.

Pre-Social Security
Social Security was created during the Great Depression. What did people do for retirement before then? It seems that they worked into their old age or relied on family. See here. Would we be able to do that today? Were older people healthier before the depression? Were families wealthier back then?

Generation Xers don't believe in it.
In a survey taken in 1994, more people aged 18-34 believed in UFOs than that social security will exist when they retire. See here, "UFO vs. Social Security."
Yet, politicians on both sides of the aisle are promoting their agendas under the theory that they are going to help the younger workers. The Bush Administration. Democrats The younger workers can see the writing on the wall and don't believe what anybody says. I have taken an informal survey of people my own age and virtually nobody feels that they will receive social security under the current program. Oddly enough, they don't believe that they will receive money under Bush's program, either. In fairness, people did mention that they might have a better chance under Bush's proposal, but that they weren't relying on it. Those that have thought about it are definitely not relying on social security. People may say that my sample group is ill-informed and that even if we do nothing, social security will pay 70% of benefits in future. I would respond that the baby boomers haven't retired yet, a lot could happen between now and when those projections apply, and that the only thing that is a sure thing is that the federal government will continue to spend money it doesn't have. Did projections made 35 years ago hold true today?

Social Security has long-range problems
Social security is a pay as you go program. The money that workers contribute today, go to pay retirees today. In 1950 the ratio of workers to beneficiary was 16-1, today it is 3.3-1 and in the future it will be 2-1. Figures taken from the social security webpage. See here. Social security has a surplus of almost 1.7 Trillion in the form of bonds from the treasury department. See here at the bottom of the page under "assets." Currently they generate a lot of interest. That implies that some of those bonds are being redeemed today. But it seems that taxes have to be raised when the surplus is used in the future. More about the social security trust fund.

So, I don't feel an obligation to pay into social security, many of the younger generation don't expect to get anything out of social security, and there may be some money difficulties with the surplus. For those reasons, I think we should END SOCIAL SECURITY. Let's do away with it. The extra money could go back into the economy, either through purchasing goods or investment.

Everyone should get what has been promised them.
I'm not talking about cutting benefits for the current senior citizens in this country. They have paid into a system their whole lives and they will reap more than they sowed. They bought into the program and should get what was promised them. However, I think there is a unique opportunity to end it now. The government could set an age limit like 40 or 50 and say everyone below has to pay in at the current rate, but once a certain reserve is met, then you get back that 6% and the government could strongly encourage you to invest it for your old age. What you decide to do with the money would be your choice and you would have to live with the consequences.

I have not mentioned nor addressed the other parts of social security such as the disability or survivors' benefits. I have nothing new to add about how to manage those programs. I am talking strictly about the retirement portion here.

Conclusion
The attitude of the younger generation provides an opportunity to phase out social security. This will free up money and shift responsibility for retirement from the government to individuals and families. The 6% that workers now contribute will create a giant pool of money. That money could go to a variety of purposes. Maybe that money will become a new source of investment capital. Maybe people will go out and spend it on worthless consumer electronics. Maybe people will store it under the couch. I don't know. But I do know that right now I don't believe that social security will be around for me and if I can get that 6% of my paycheck right now, I am more than happy to take care of my own retirement, thank you.

Washington vs. Bush

George Washington respected and deferred to civilian jurisdiction while he was the commanding general of the continental army. Here are some examples of his deference.

1) Deserters from the army.
While Washington had near-dictatorial powers in 1776 and 1777, he only prosecuted deserters in eastern Pennslyvania and not in New Jersey. The difference? At the time New Jersey had a working government, eastern Pennslyvania did not. Washington trusted the civilian courts to prosecute the deserters. George Washington and American Constitutionalism. Glenn A Phelps. Page 39. Hereafter referred to as Washington. See here.

2) Deference of the Military to Civil Authority
Washington handed over his officers to civilian courts even when he thought the charges were bogus. Washington pages 37-38. A letter to a governor. Here is one to a brigadier general directing him to cooperate with civilian authorities.

4) Title with letter from Howe
British General Howe sent Washignton a letter in 1776 with overtures of peace. Washington refused the first two letters because they did not acknowledge his congressional title of general. He directed that all offers of peace had to be directed to Congress. Washington pages 36-37. Writings that detail the incident. (look on page 274)

These episodes show that Washington only used his power as general when he needed to. Otherwise he deferred to congress. Keep in mind that this is the same congress that couldn't provide him with enough supplies to feed and clothe his army. Unfortunately, this example has not been followed by the Bush administration.

Ways that Bush Administration has expanded Military Authority
1) Jose Padilla
The Bush administratction claims that since we are at war with terrorism, the president can declare whoever he wants an "enemy combatant" and hold them indefinitely and that there should not be any court review of the case. Don't believe me? Look at the links below. What the Cato Institute thinks, Court documents, good summary article with latest ruling

2)The Defense Department now has spies.
See here. Isn't this the area of the CIA, a civilian agency? I have been told that spying came out of the military, but the article talks about how a new special force was created after September 11th. Didn't we just rearrange the intelligence agencies to make them more effective? This seems to be an end run around a civilian agency.

People may argue that because Bush is a civilian commander-in-chief, that the comparison to a military commander is irrelevant. I disagree. My point is that under the Bush administration, the military is encroaching on civilian jurisdiction.

Summary
George Washington went out of his way to not usurp civilian jurisdiction by military authority. The Bush administration seems to usurp civilian jurisdiction at every chance they get. We should follow the course of Washington.

Purpose of My Blog

What would the founding fathers think of the current structure and powers of the federal government? For example, what would George Washignton think of the PATRIOT ACT? What would Ben Franklin think of the Department of Homeland Security? What rights would Alexander Hamiliton and John Adams grant to the "detainees" in Guantanamo Bay? These are the types of questions I hope to start a dialog about thorugh my blog.

I believe in being free. I believe that the founding fathers of our country were inspired men who knew how to set up a system to help keep us free. When I say free, I am talking about inalienable rights, not free to do whatever you want without suffering the consequences. I believe we can learn from the founding fathers and that what they had to say about government is relevant today. Especially what they had to say about the role of the federal government because they helped form it.

Everyone I have talked to has the objection that our society has changed so much in the last 200+ years that what the founders thought is just not relevant anymore. People often use the example of the internet. Since the founders couldn't see the impact of the internet or so many other changes in our society, what they have to say is not relevant. While I admit that George Washington didn't see the internet in the future, I believe that the founders did have a good handle on human nature and how it relates to governmental power. And that, I believe, has not changed much in over 3000+ years. From the Greeks to the Romans to the birth of our nation, to modern day, people are ambitious and seek power and will use the government to get it.

So, in this blog I intend to publish my thoughts on what the founders of our nation would handle the problems we face today with an emphasis on how they might react to the events of 9/11 and the resulting changes in our government and laws. Also, I will try to explore how a republic or a democracy turns into a tyrannical form of government using the examples of Rome, Greece, the Weimar Republic of Germany, and any other democratic republic that I happen to come across in my research. Finally, from time to time, I may give my thoughts on current issues.

My Qualifications
I am no historian. I don't have a degree in political science. I don't have any special inside sources. But I do have a law degree and I love being an American. I enjoy living where I want to, associating with who I choose, and generally living my life how I please with a minimum of government interference. I love our form of government and I feel a surge of power and pride every time I vote. I have read some books on George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and the Roman Republic. Basically, judge me by my thoughts that I publish.