It is my opinion that the recent Obama NDAA is comparable to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. I'm sure many of you have heard of the NDAA that was signed into law last New Years Eve that basically have government the right to apprehend and detain you indefinately without trial, but since some of you have had a public school education, I will try to review what the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were all about so we are all on the same page. The Alien and Sedition Acts were signed into law by President John Adams. There were four bills passed in the aftermath of the French Revolution's riegn of terror and during an undeclared naval war with France. Sound familiar? Basically the legislation was favored by the Federalist party, headed by John Adams. The four bills are: 1. Naturalization -- Extended the duration of residence for aliens to become citizens from 5 to 14 years. 2. Alien Act -- Authorized the President to apprehend and deport resident aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the US." 3. The Alien Enemies Act -- Authorized the President to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the US. 4. Sedition Act -- Made it a crime to publish "false, scandelous, and malicious writing" against the government or certain public officials. Many were tried and persecuted under these laws, including one Congressman Matthew Lyon from Vermont. He was indicted under the Sedition Act for an essay he had written in the Vermont Journal accusing the administration of "ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice". The case wound up being heard by the Supreme Court and Lyon challenged the charges by saying that the Sedition Act was unconstitutional. However, the Federalist appointed Supreme Court held up the Sedition Act as being constitutional, and fined him $1000 and 4 months in prison. For those confident that the Supreme Court will not uphold the Constitutionality of the NDAA this history comes as a warning. The Supreme court is just another political entity, whose aim is often to help represent the political powers that be that put them on the Supreme Court. So who then came to the rescue? It was none other than Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican party. Jefferson was able to articulate to the masses how the legislation was in direct violation of liberties fought to give its citizens in the new Republic and how it must be defeated. Of course, Jefferson was then elected and the rest is history. In fact, the sentiment to overturn the legislation was such that people once talked of a second Revolution or even succession. Luckily, however, a democrat path to overturn the Federalists was used instead. You might even say that this legislation doomed the Federalist party after Jefferson was done with them and their Sedition Act. So are there any Jefferson-like power figures who are speaking out against the NDAA today? Where are the discussoin about succession or Revolution? Where is a viable major party who is in opposition to this legislation? I suppose we live in different times. During the time of Jefferson, you had liberty loving people who had just fought a hard fought war. You also had power figures able to articulate the matter to the average voter. Today all power figures it seems is owned by either of the two major political parties, who essentially could be compared to being the Federalist party. After all, both major parties aim seems to be a big centralized government, and anyone who dare try to implement political change must go through one of these two Federalist bohemouths, or their vote is simply a wasted one. In addition, you have a populace basically indoctrinated via public education. Assuming you can read when you can graduate, your public college will no doubt inform you the evils of capitalism and praise a big centralized Government. No doubt, Jefferson is turning in his grave. For him merely persecuting aliens was enough to produce outrage, what would he have done if it were directed at its very citizens? At what price do we have freedom? At what price do we have "safety"? These are the questions we must answer, but I suspect the answer is a different one than it was some 200 plus years ago.
These are the trials that a free society will go through and luckily we have a system in place that usually ends up reverting back to the center whether through Congressional pressure, Supreme Court rulings, or direct action by a President. Yes the Sedition act was horrible but it was fixed, Lincolns trashing of the Constitution was later reversed, things like this happen but usually do not last forever. There is something to be said for our Constitution remaining fairly intact for this long. It is a credit to the way the founders designed the system. Don't forget that FDR tried to add more judges to the Supreme Court because they kept declaring his policies as unconstitutional. Would that have been bad? Yes, but it would have been reversed more than likely once a republican got in office. Will the patriot act eventually disappear? I believe so, once its proven that its being misused on regular citizens who are not terrorists. Will the NDAA be dismantled? Probably, if its ever used for purposes it wasn't intended for. There are plenty of watchdog groups just waiting for a chance to see some abuse of these powers ready to make the cases against them. I wouldn't overly worry about it.
Your reaction is pretty much what I see and hear from people and the media. It is in stark contrast to the reaction of someone like Jefferson who actually did something about it. Just a word of caution, I provided the example of the Supreme Court not doing their job during that time by declaring the Sedition Act unconstitutional. What would have happened without Jefferson? I dare say that the US would have taken a turn for the worst much sooner.
With all due respect the Supreme Court did do their job. Because you happen to not agree with their decision is irrelevant. You alluded to the fact that they were bought off and I would really be curious to see what evidence you have for this. I'm not saying I agree with their decision either but they are the final law of the land per the Constitution so they did their job in every sense of the word.
Doesn't matter if you or I agree or not. If the Supreme Court says it is not a violation of the Constitution than it isn't.
Yep you are correct. Somebody has to be the "Final Law" of the land and they are it. They've made some bad decisions of course but you will also notice throughout their history that they have been fairly consistent at upholding the Constitution and keeping it intact. Most of the bad decisions that most people consider mistakes are later reversed and the country put back on the right path. If the people or the President or Congress starts trying to decide cases for them then the Constitution will be nothing more than a tool for whatever political party in charge uses to advance their ideology's. Even if the Supreme Court screws up, which they don't do often, they are self-regulating by the constant back and forth between liberal appointees and conservative. This ensures that their decisions always remain somewhere in the center.
The NDAA does not change anything. The US government has kidnapped american citizens and held them illegally for years. It's called rendition.
I did not say they they are directly in the center and remain there perfectly all the time. However, they consistently are floating somewhere around the center when you take all their decisions as a whole. Because conservatives appoint like minded judges and liberals do the same this ensures that the power of the court goes back in forth between these two. When the Court does make horrible decisions like the Dread Scott case it will eventually swing back and be reversed. This is how it was designed to work. Remember that those two issues you just mentioned are fairly well divided among the people so I wouldn't say that any rulings on those have been disasterous for the nation.
So let me get this straight. The Dred Scott decision, which preceeded the Civil War, did not have any disasterous consequences for the nation? Right.
Sorry I may have not made that clear. I was referring to the fact that the Dread Scott DID have extremely bad implications and it was far outside the sphere of what was good for the nation. I brought that up as an example of how the Supreme Court tends to reverse itself when these kinds of horrible decisions are made. Cases like gay marriage or abortion are split about equally down the middle of the country. Any way that the Court rules would effectively upset half the nation. No matter how the Court rules on abortion or gay marriage will pretty much be in the middle of conservative and liberal ideals and not be disaterous for the country. Now if they made a law saying that all gays should be denied the right to even claim their belief and should be imprisoned for being gay, and the court upheld this, that would be far outside of the center and would eventually be reversed.
Possibly but only if the government uses this rule to act against the American populace in force. I highly doubt that's why it was passed or what it will be used for. People thought the Patriot Act would be the downfall of America but it hasn't been. I do however believe that as soon as abuse is reported from these acts and brought before the Supreme Court they will be dismantled.
