Checks and Balances

The Constitution of the United States of America assumes that stated motivations for actions are not sufficient to preclude the onset of tyranny. A tyrant might evolve from the best of intentions. Hence our checks and balances [1] , an explicit acknowledgment that power corrupts, even well-intentioned power wielded for the public good.

But the constitution does not stop there. Shocking though the proposition that tyranny can only be precluded by pitting the government against itself, as our nation evolved the founding fathers found even this to be insufficient to preclude the onset of tyranny. Thus they amended the constitution to grant certain rights to the people that even these well-checked agencies of the government may not constrain.[2]

In a press release dated 07Feb2003, the Department of Justice issued a two paragraph explanation for their recently disclosed efforts (the so-called PATRIOT II legislation) to give to the Executive Branch further unchecked powers to combat terrorism. [3]

The administration wants these powers badly. Without doubt, their motivations are good. Without doubt, terrorism is bad. Without doubt the world has changed since 9/11. But the very process by which this proposed legislation was drafted (in secret, with no public dialog, with no input from the very congress that would have to vote on it) should give us pause.

And as if this quiet back room formulation of sweeping changes to the very nature of our government is not enough to remind us that even well-intentioned power corrupts, the public response of the Justice Department after the cat was out of the bag should be.

In their press release they proclaim, as they often do, (1) that these measures are for public safety, that they were motivated by the real need to combat terrorism

We are continually considering anti-terrorism measures and would be derelict if we were not doing so.

[our] deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties

Fair enough.
Does anyone doubt that J. Edgar Hoover would have said any less? [4]

---
[1] http://www.congressforkids.net/checksandbalances.htm

[2] I confess to having been ignorant of this interpretation of the Bill of Rights. I was only introduced to it recently in the opening of Lawrence Lessig's "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace". http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/code/

[3] http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7230

[4] http://foia.fbi.gov/hoover.htm

9:23:20 PM   permalink: []   feedback:   comments: []