We the people…
I don’t think there is any doubt around the fact that the United States was founded on libertarian grounds. The constitution drips with freedom. For those of you who don’t know the philosophy behind libertarianism, it is based around a lack of government prevalence:
The government must be controlled by the people, not vice-versa.
The government must fear any decision is makes that infringes on people’s liberties.
The government must always be vulnerable to overthrow from its people.
Let’s look at the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first part regards keeping the influence of an establishment of religion (Church) to not be prevalent in the government, and that congress should not make a law that pretains to less than all the religions (”no law respecting”). This is primarily twisted by our current President, who is a self-acclaimed “born-again Christian”, and said that not only did God tell him to invade Iraq, but also that the most influencial person in his life is Jesus. Hey, there’s a million ways to skin a cat. And by “skin a cat”, I mean “tear down the wall separating Church and State”. This also mostly has to do with our “freedom of speech”, something very few countries have. This is here, again, to limit the goverment’s power. If the goverment regulates what we say, it has far more power over the people, and that can’t happen. Right now, it is already being infringed. Who’s to say I’m not allowed to say “fuck” or “shit” in school? It’s simply a secquence of sounds some people have decided is offending (but I sure as hell don’t think so). How about the second?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment is not here just because people like guns, it’s that guns are necessary to retain the freedom of the people. One of the main reasons the Revolutionary War started and escalated was when British Federalists tried to destroy or capture large stocks of American weapons and powder. If it weren’t for Washington reacting in time, the Federalists would’ve had complete power over us, as the Revolutionary forces would have had nothing to fight back with. In the situtation where the government gains too much power and destroys the American right to keep and bear arms, there would be little we can do. See, the government has to be fearful of it’s population, not the other way around. A lot of people say “Well, it says “militia”, so we can’t just let anybody get a gun!!!1″ Wrong. It says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” By militia, they mean an organized fighting force, controlled by our government, for the “Security of a free State”. I.E., our current armed forces. HOWEVER, the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” because the people just fought a war agains Federalist militia, for two years, that’s why the Second Amendment is here and enforced.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This limits the military’s power. It basically means that a soldier shall not live in a guy’s house without his permission. This has declined in relevancy since the Revolutionary War, as there has not since been a war on our soil.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This sounds awfully familiar, was it that NSA-Bush wiretapping thing? The “Patriot” act? Well, both. With the wiretapping, Bush did not obtain a “Warrant”, and is therefore unconstitutional. With the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001″, it says it is and act “To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.” Wow, I guess they wouldn’t notice the “for other purposes” sneaked in there. This gives the government FAR too much power, and that can’t happen. People pass it off as “we’re at war”. Well, these guys wrote the Bill of Rights right after and during a war. That’s the whole point - our civil liberties cannot be infringed upon even in a time of war. But, then again, nobody seemed to mind when we locked all those Japanese people up in WW2. Wait, they did mind. Actually, we were all pretty damn pissed. Lets face it, America is pretty safe right now, even though we are “in a war” (even though the “mission” was declared “accomplished” a few years ago in a pretty lavish spectacle), and the level of our safety doesn’t constitute giving our government the ability to spy on us without anyone ever finding out. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” What supporters of the “Patriot” Act don’t seem to understand that as soon as you give up those freedoms, you’re never going to get them back.
Right now, those seem to be the only amendments in the Bill O’ Rights that the government appears to be breaking or is getting pressure to do so soon (the second amendment). Only time will tell, as the United States veers further and further away from the liberties and personal freedom the founding fathers intended.