The Tenth Amendment And "... all the other Acts and Things ..."

OK. Let's cut to the chase.ⁱ Do you know (without checking Google) what's in the Tenth Amendment?ⁱⁱ Do you know the origin of the quotation in the title of this essay?

I didn't think so.

And that's a serious problem. The quotation, from the document that justified our severing ties with England, and the amendment from the Bill of Rights – which is part of the document by which we are governed – are unfamiliar to us at the same time that we pledge fealty to our country and what makes it great.

Our revolution was based on the belief that England, as embodied by King George III,ⁱⁱⁱ was harming us, rather than protecting us. John Locke had expounded the view that there was a Social Contract by which people accepted a government that would protect them, and that they were willing to trade some of their liberty for safety. The Founding Fathers felt that England was not living up to the bargain and it was time to change governments.

And though the threats have changed, along with the manner of addressing them, we face similar challenges today – perhaps more. We're a world power now, and besides the pressure to solve the world's problems, we're a target of the unhappy, whatever their gripe. Either we caused it or we should solve it.

Our own citizens are divided about this. They seek security but many are reluctant to make sacrifices for it.^iv For example, as the American People were panicking over the possibility of ebola – as they demanded isolation of anyone who have come in contact with an ebola patient – a nursing student refused isolation and threatened legal action against the government if it forced the issue. Who was right and who was wrong in the particular case isn't relevant. What matters is that individuals are certain that their view of matters is the one the government should follow. That applies to what we should be doing elsewhere and what we shouldn't be doing at home. Everyone is smarter than those we have chosen to represent us. We may insist that our leaders save us, but they must do so without in any way limiting our actions or our freedoms, or our inalienable right to make our own decisions. About anything.

But that's anarchy, and “anarchy” and “democracy” aren't synonyms. Many political philosophers have told us this. We instituted a government and we, in the form of our people at the time, accepted the bargain. That has implications for us, even though we weren't there. If we accept the concept of democracy we must follow the laws, changing our representation if we believe it to be failing to do its job properly. Unfortunately the government that represents us^v and is responsible to us doesn't always follow our views. Not that they should necessarily do whatever polls say is the majority view at any particular moment, but they should be aware of public sentiment and, if they disagree with it, they should publicly inform their constituencies of their reasoning and their positions. That would provide us with the chance to learn about the situations and their thinking, making our next votes better grounded. We chose them and we may pass judgment on their performance at the next election. But until then we are bound by the laws they have passed.

However well we know their views – even if not at all – they're well informed of ours, whether we like it or not. The Constitution forbade quartering, torture, search and seizure, and self-incrimination. All were ways of gathering information then. We agreed that they were not warranted.^vi Now hidden cameras, telephone taps, monitoring of our internet and social media messages, and other similar techniques are in use. And that raises an important question: what rights did we give up, and what rights are we willing to surrender in order to be safe? Do we want the government to have access to our communications?

The Constitution, as it was written, was obviously silent on modern information gathering techniques, but we have chosen to extend the original concept with the times. Unfortunately, however, those who challenge our liberty have also moved with the times – both in their ways of planning and in their ways of waging war. Of course we reject any action that would make us like them. Their ways are not our ways. They use the telephone and the internet to communicate with each other and to spy on us. But we will not sink to their level. We have completely unlinked our demand for safety from any willingness to sacrifice for it. And those who would destroy us are entitled to the same rights as we, even if they have no compunctions about what they do with those rights and how they exploit us.

So now, as beheadings, other murders, rapes, and abductions are becoming common elsewhere, we “deplore” them.^vii But often that's all we do. The perpetrators vow to continue their mayhem – even on our own soil. One response, the Patriot Act (and some less publicized actions by our government) promotes surveillance and electronic monitoring as methods to neutralize the threat, although many of or citizens protest. They would eliminate all monitoring as invasions of our privacy. But it is reasonable to view such surveillance as a part of the protection that we demand of our government. It is, after all, the government's responsibility to “provide for the common Defence [sic] … of the United States” and this is one of the mechanisms that it uses. If we believe there to be problems with the program it is incumbent on us to so inform our representatives and to elect others if necessary – to work within the system, not to destroy it, and ourselves in the process.

I don't think we're ready to change governments yet. I know I'm not. So if I have to give up some of my privacy to protect myself, I'm willing to do so. I don't think it's the “slippery slope” that's going to lead to tyranny, but even if it is we have more time to address it than we have to deal with the clear and present dangers we now face.

Next episode: “Do You Really Think So?” – Better not to think about it.

I        The catch-phrase derives from the inevitable chase scene at the end of silent-movie comedies and is usually attributed to Hal Roach, Sr.

ii       I'll let you look it up – and the quotation (from the Declaration of Independence) as well. I suspect that I could have chosen another amendment and another quotation and obtained the same result. The specifics of the amendment and the quotation weren't the point. More important is the fact that we haven't been properly educated on their significance.

iii      Look up “syndoche” as well.

iv       Or they are moved by what they consider a “higher” cause.

v       We the People.

vi       Although we permit some searches now when properly warranted.

vii      We're reluctant to do much more.