War is War And Not Something Else

The nature of obfuscation in politics is on many levels an accepted norm. The classic joke of a politician’s response to naming his favorite color as plaid, lest he risk offending a portion of the electorate is regularly expected and no longer raises an eyebrow. The concern, however, is that once elected, the verbal gymnastics employed during the election too often carries over into the serious and life affecting act of governing.

The former standard of such imbecilic conduct was the sight and sound of a sitting president of the United States, under oath, requiring a clarification of a specific query by asking “what the definition of ‘is’ is” It brought much ridicule and derision upon him, deservedly so, but in the larger context it occurred within the framework of a civil trial, hence there were no national security issues at play and so it was easily considered nothing more harmful than a politician simply excelling at the art of obfuscation.

The issue today is far more grievous and has serious implications for national security and the future of a thriving democratic republic based upon a self-governing nation.

The United States participation in the United Nations sanctioned actions in Libya can be debated from within the entire spectrum of political thought. The constitutionality of our involvement in such engagements, the presidential authority to act without congressional pre-approval, and even the basic ‘why only Libya?’ if the intended goal is to protect a people from their slaughter at the hands of their own government are all fundamental questions that must be asked and answered.

But before that necessary dialogue can begin, the art of governmental obfuscation must stop.

The stated government position is that the actions taken in Libya are not ‘war’: the official pronouncement is that we are merely engaged in “kinetic military action”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘kinetic’ as “active; lively; dynamic”.

While military action would not normally be described as ‘lively’, what else is a military force actively engaged in deploying weaponry anything else but ‘war’?

When a government fails to be honest with its citizenry about the most obvious of issues, it risks its credibility on everything else. The American people may be divided on the proper use of their military, but they know that when that military is firing missiles at another sovereign country, there is little left to the verbal imagination but to describe those actions as ‘war’.

The United States government needs to drop the art of obfuscation when our men and women of the armed forces are putting their lives on the line.

War is not a game of verbal gymnastics, not the art of defining ‘what ‘is’ is”; it is not a ‘police action’.

It is about life and death.

That fact, that reality, in and of itself, demands a basic fundamental and unshakeable level of honesty from a government to its people. Any government that chooses to engage in such simplistic nomenclature nonsense does not deserve the impassioned description of a government,” of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

The Constitutional Purpose

(ed. note: as a matter of practice, the Madison Conservative blog does not single out individuals for any type of ad hominum attacks on any level.  The comments made by Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., (D), Illinois, in early March of 2011 on the House floor that are included here are solely for the purpose of establishing the foundation of the discussion point for this blog.)

The following transcription of comments made by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is provided courtesy of C-SPAN.

JESSE JACKSON JR.: “Mr. Speaker, I believe that the answer to long-term unemployment is actually in the Constitution of the United States. Well, let me say that a little differently. It’s not in the Constitution of the United States. It should be in the Constitution of the United States, and one of these days we’re going to get there. We need to add to the Constitution the right to a family to have a decent home. What would that do for home construction in this nation? What would that do for millions of unemployed people? He says we need to add to the Constitution the right to medical care. How many doctors would such a right create? He says we need to add to the Constitution of the United States the right to a decent education for every American. How many schools would such a right build from Maine to California? How many people would be put to work building roofs and designing classrooms and providing every student with an iPod and a laptop? How many ghettos and barrios will actually be touched by such an amendment? In fact, very little that we pass in the Congress of the United States even touches the long-term unemployed. Only thing that touches them that this Congress has access to that can actually change their station in life, is the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Speaker, there’s an even greater America that’s in front of us. It’s the America that adds to our founding document these basic rights.”

Herein lays a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the United States Constitution. The Constitution was established to provide restrictions of the government upon the people. It is not intended to be a list of what the government is to bestow the people; it is intended to inhibit the power of government so that a free society can grow and thrive to the extent of its desires. If we were to follow the line of thought started by Congressman Jackson, the only result would be a socialist state: the government would be the provider of all the needs of its citizenry. The framers and the founders were all to familiar with all manner of despotic rulers and their effects upon their people. The model of democratic self rule was a unique concept, and they wrote the Constitution not a guarantee of government entitlements, but rather as a guarantee that government would not be able to restrict the freedom of this nation.

There are no ‘rights’ entrusted to the government, only responsibilities. The ‘rights’ guaranteed are but to the people of the United States.

The preamble of the Constitution is written the way it is for a reason; we should never lose sight of that fact.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Supreme Court

An effective tricameral governmental structure is only effective if there is a stable balancing agent vested with the authority to assure the full constitutionality of all official acts of the three participants. Under the American formula of a democratic republic, that power has been so deemed as to lie in the judicial arm of government, as an equal partner in government. The United States Supreme Court has the sole responsibility to determine whether actions or legislation taken by the federal executive or either of the two congressional legislative bodies is permissible within the guidelines and restrictions imposed upon them by the Constitution. This authority also extends to issues of law that may occur within state sovereignty. The judiciary, however, must be only deciders of law; it cannot legislate nor act in an executive manner.

A dangerous trend in recent years has been twofold and does not bode well for the continuity of the American form of government.

First, many judicial jurisdictions have opted to operate beyond being only deciders of fact and have moved into the realm of activism that borders on a dangerous form of partisanship. A court should not have the power to enact legislation by fiat: it should only be responsible for mandating that legislation found to be constitutionally lacking be rewritten.  Legal cases and challenges have been instituted by parties purposely choosing specific federal court districts hoping for a particular political slant to be equated into a legal decision. This has diminished the strength of the federal judiciary, as participants of a lawsuit no longer accept rulings of a particular court, knowing they will simply appeal the particular ruling to a higher court, with the intent of reaching the United States Supreme Court.

Therein lies the true danger to a democratic republic, for once the high court opts to hear a specific case, they are immediately burdened with political attacks and a volley of ad hominum assaults. Legal and greater constitutional issues are no longer deemed to be properly resolved, but rather declared tainted by a political slant. When an opening within the highest courts in the land occurs, the only sounds heard across the media and informational landscapes are diatribes of how best to either maintain or  alter the political slant of the court, as if it were being reduced to a matter of political gamesmanship.

A court is designed to hear evidence and to be a decider of fact. Diluting that responsibility in the hope of a short term political position of power is as great a threat to a democracy as any outside force determined to destroy it. A bulwark must be maintained to preserve legal authority.

The Supreme Court of the United States is just that; the highest court in the land, so established in order that the machinations of government as instituted by the members of the tricameral foundation perform their duties within the confines of the United States Constitution.

If we are to remain a free people, we must maintain the integrity of our highest court and remove from a position of power and authority any citizen who attempts to diminish that integrity for political gain. Once the oversight ability of any system is compromised, there is no recourse left for those who look for redress; if it involves a government, the nation it governs is surely to fall.

The Reality of Free Speech

For many people, the thumbnail sketch of the protections afforded free speech under the first amendment has been based upon a quote attributed to Voltaire:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Succinct and to the point to be sure, but a statement that must be continually evaluated and reassessed lest its fundamental underlying precepts fall into a state of atrophic  decay from lack of proper and regular use.

The recent Supreme Court decision* allowing a small group of American citizens to assemble and loudly protest using profane and horrific language at funerals for fallen soldiers is just such an instance that demands the aforementioned reappraisal of the principles upon which free speech is accorded the citizenry.

First, the decision must be made of whether shouting obscenities at a funeral, in any situation, is morally acceptable and should such outrageous conduct be sanctioned by the government, said sanctioning coming by it permissibility.

Obviously, actions such as these strike a deep emotional chord and are felt to be reprehensible and an affront to society at large. There are few, save the particular litigants to the legal action, who believe that screeching bile and ignorance is, on any societal level, acceptable. Such actions are repulsive to Americans, doubly so when taken in the context of a funeral for an American soldier, one who laid down their life in the pursuit of freedom.

This issue, however, is one that must be absent emotional sentiment. Any issue presented and taken up by the court must be so devoid. How this issue makes one ‘feel’ cannot and must not be taken into account. We are truly a nation of laws, and the Constitution specifically is absent any manner of sentimentality. Adding any modicum of emotion serves only to obscure the underlying facts.

There are indeed limits to free speech – the popular understanding that free speech does not grant permission or protection to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater for instance. Simply speaking, or shouting ones lack of intelligence is not a crime. The definition of ‘hate speech’ must be relegated to one person’s internal and  individual belief that they ‘hate’ what someone else is saying. It is critical to remember that one persons’ individual belief system cannot become a universal standard, no matter what its allegiance. Once any part of free speech is impinged upon by using ‘feeling’ to equate its permissibility, the quick downward slope to regulating all speech is unavoidable.

And so, no matter how disgusting one may believe it is to shout obscenities at a soldier’s funeral, it is more critical to remember the fundamental freedoms they willingly gave their lives to defend.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

If a country is to remain free, this cannot be merely a catchphrase. It must remain an integral part of the national foundation and we must all remain vigilant in its defense.

*SNYDER v. PHELPS ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09–751. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 2, 2011