Units And Standards Reprised

     Not too long ago, in addressing one of my favorite shibboleths, “national security,” I wrote the following:

     [The Biden Administration] argued that obeying the First Amendment “imposed unprecedented limits on the ability of the President’s closest aides to use the bully pulpit to address matters of public concern, on the FBI’s ability to address threats to the Nation’s security, and on the CDC’s ability to relay public health information at platforms’ request.”

     So the Regime is claiming, quite baldly, that violations of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech are required for the sake of “national security.” The claim isn’t that there’s any ambiguity to what’s being done; the Regime concedes that it’s violating the right to freedom of expression. Indeed, it’s demanding that a claim of “national security” trumps the right to speak freely. But that raises certain questions:

1. What is “national security?”
2. Is it measurable? If so, by what means and in what units?
3. What statements and categories of statements affect “national security,” whether positively or negatively?
4. Is any increment or decrement to “national security,” however slight, a justification for violating an individual’s right to speak freely?
5. Since the violation of an individual’s rights by a private party is legally actionable, what, then, should occur when a government official or functionary violates an individual’s rights to the detriment of “national security?”

     No, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the answers. Keeping the whole thing undefined and undefinable is key to the aspirations of the political class. As matters stand, any sufficiently highly placed federal official or functionary can justify anything, including any violation of any right possessed by anyone, simply by invoking “national security.” It’s a blank check for unlimited and absolute power.

     I felt that put the matter plainly: the federal government, in the name of an undefined objective it calls “national security,” demanded – during the Biden years, at least – that Americans surrender a Constitutionally protected right: i.e., freedom of expression. But there’s another phrase of import in the quoted passage, a bludgeon equal in size to “national security” if not greater: “public health.”

     I just did a quick search of this site, and found 37 columns that mention “public health.” So it’s not an obscure subject here. During the COVID-19 pan[dem]ic, it was claimed to override both the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression and the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of bodily autonomy.

     Some very bright people – many of them ardent defenders of freedom – have argued that “public health” is a necessary exception to individuals’ rights. Nevertheless, the term is undefined. It has no agreed-upon, measurable meaning. There is no “bright line rule” by which Smith may determine, objectively, when and how he, or Jones, or Davis has trespassed against the “public health.” That makes it at least as dangerous to Americans’ rights as “national security.”

     Yet we sit here and take it. Worse, we allow salaried public servants to pontificate about it to us as if they know what they’re talking about. (NB: They don’t.)

     Just recently, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse made the matter explicit:

     During confirmation hearings this week on Trump’s nominee to take over the Department of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy, Jr., Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island once again demonstrated his fascist and petty dictator nature, demanding that Kennedy support “forced mandatory vaccinations” of Americans or else he will vote against Kennedy’s nomination.
     Whitehouse also demanded that Kennedy promise to never again say “that vaccines are not medically safe when they in fact are.”
     In other words Kennedy is to put aside his own research and knowledge, that has found some vaccines efficacy and safety are questionable, and join the government swamp to lie to Americans while forcing Americans to take drugs they might not want.

     Robert Zimmerman includes the video of that obscenity. It’s hard to watch it, but if you need confirmation of Whitehouse’s desire to violate Americans’ rights, you have it.

     Here’s the oath Whitehouse had to take to become a United States Senator:

     I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

     Does Whitehouse’s dismissal of Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights seem consistent with that oath, Gentle Reader? Or does it strike you as a blatant violation? Note the “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion” clause. That oath is binding even if you have your fingers crossed when you take it.

     It’s not the first time a legislator has openly dismissed some provision of the Constitution. There have been many others. During the original arguments over Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi said that Congress has the power to do whatever it wants. During a 2010 interview on Fox News, Congressman James Clyburn (D, SC) openly said “I don’t give a damn about the Constitution.” The attitude is widespread, especially among Democrats.

     The time has come for citizens to ask sharp questions – “Who did it? What exactly? When was it? How do you know? How will you know?” – and demand that they be answered clearly and specifically. Otherwise it’s torches-and-pitchforks time. Actually, when I’m not trying to seem restrained and well-tempered, I’ll argue that that hour arrived long ago. But it’s too early in the morning for me to start foaming at the mouth.