We gathered yesterday, Gentle Reader, for a discussion of the constitutionality of highway sobriety checkpoints.
In yesterday's episode we learned that the Fourth Amendment, according to the Supreme Court, can be ignored if the challenges of enforcing the law seem too burdensome for the Government...and we learned that despite a history stretching all the way back to the 1700s and the British case Entick v. Carrington, the Court was, for the first time, willing to allow general search warrants on American soil.
Today we take the history a bit further...and then we talk about what happens when freedom is given away...and sadly, we need look no further than a few miles from the Capitol Building, in Washington DC itself, to see exactly what happens when freedom is suddenly gone and a community is placed under siege by the police-all, we suppose, for the community's own good.
We have a lot of ground to cover, so we best get out on the proverbial road-and let's see if we can avoid our own roadblocks along the way.
The holidays are in full swing...or at least they are in the US...which means your days-and nights-are full of running around like crazy. There's a million things to do, a thousand errands to run, and...are you kidding me?!
A police sobriety roadblock?
Now?
That's right: there's a crowd of officers all around you, there's no way to avoid it...and even though you've committed no crime whatsoever, you get to talk to the police...and if they decide it's acceptable, you may continue on your way.
How can this be legal in America?
Does it actually serve any purpose?
And what happens when the police decide to blockade your neighborhood--for your own good?
Believe it or not, it's my job today and tomorrow to answer those questions...and beyond that, to defend the simple right of Americans to go somewhere if we feel like it, without having to explain it to the police...and in today's discussion, I intend to set the stage through an examination of history.
Many activists involved with the struggle to preserve our 4th Amendment rights and oppose the latest revisions to FISA were deeply disappointed by the substance of Obama's response, which contained a whole series of misleading arguments, as Glenn Greenwald documented here.
While some were ecstatic that Obama listened at all, others had a higher standard, and found the disingenuous arguments to be insulting to their intelligence, particularly given how fundamental the issues are, and how clearly Senator Obama had previously stated his intention to filibuster if telco immunity was part of the deal.
Although running to the right after the primary--and losing--is a time-honored tradition in the Democratic Party, many of Obama's supporters were expecting something more from him. And when he spoke of reaching out and bringing people together, they did not envision the unifying cause to be the embracing of Bush/Cheney/Rove lawlessness.
Which brings up the question, what next? One possibility is to up the pressure by sitting in at campaign offices this coming Monday. If people are truly serious about there commitment to the rule of law, this is a logical next step. Unlike other lawbreaking, civil disobedience upholds the law by willingly embracing the consequences of its actions in order to challenge injustice.
Some would argue that such a move would be highly damaging to Obama's campaign, but others might disagree. It is still quite early in the general election campaign, and putting a stop now to such wrong-headed triangulation, directly violating his own word, could be doing him an enormous favor. What's more, truly demonstrating his capacity to listen to the people and be persuaded--after 8 years of Bush/Cheney--could be the most powerful demonstration imagineable that the change talks about is actually real.
Furthermore, Obama himself has tacitly endorsed such a move, in the Presidential Debate sponsored by CNN and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on January 21, 2008, in response to the last question asked:
Wolf Blitzer:If Dr. Martin Luther King were alive today, unfortunately, he's not, but if he were alive today, why do you think he would or why should he endorse you?
....
BLITZER: Senator?
OBAMA: Well, I don't think Dr. King would endorse any of us. I think what he would call upon the American people to do is to hold us accountable, and this goes to the core differences, I think, in this campaign.
I believe change does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up. Dr. King understood that.
(APPLAUSE)
It was those women who were willing to walk instead of ride the bus, union workers who are willing to take on violence and intimidation to get the right to organize. It was women who decided, "I'm as smart as my husband. I'd better get the right to vote."
OBAMA: them arguing, mobilizing, agitating, and ultimately forcing elected officials to be accountable, I think that's the key.
So that has been a hallmark of my career, transparency and accountability, getting the American people involved. That's how we're going to bring about change. That's why I want to be president of the United States, to respect the power of the American people to bring about change.
STATE BLOGS
