It was a thought that caused me to wake up in a sweat… could it be? Could it be that Rand Paul and I share the same policy on the misnamed “Patriot Act”?
I was rightfully considered more of a Libertarian than Democrat when I ran for Governor, but that was in a time when people who claimed to be Libertarians weren’t simple shills for the Coch brothers. No true patriot could support the Patriot Act (as Ben Franklin famously said “anyone who forfeits liberty for security, deserve neither”) and I have always felt that it was a mistake. When the Act was used to get bank records of my employees when the Bush Administration was investigating me for a violation of Campaign Finance Laws, my worst suspicions were realized. The Patriot Act is used by law enforcement to spy on every citizen for any reason.
So imagine my surprise when the lone man holding up the vote on the Patriot Act was Rand Paul. Does the phrase “existential crisis” come to mind? Not really. It turns out that Paul was not objecting to the Patriot Act because it violated the U.S. Constitution with routine and random warrantless searches of all citizens. No, he objected to a provision of the Act which required registration of arms purchases. Rand Paul wanted anyone, including potential terrorists, to be able to purchase weapons anonymously.
Fear was the motivation that caused Congress to take away our rights – fear of the terrorist boogey-man. Paul simply wanted to weaken the one part of the Act that did make sense…
FiegerTime - Geoffrey Fieger's Blog 
i wake up fearfull that we are losing our free markets to central control. not the government, but rater large oligopolies that have taken over free markets.http://freeourfreemarkets.org
Mr Fieger,
My condolences on the passing of your friend Dr. Jack.
I admired your interesting relationship with a man who was trying to solve a huge problem in a simple and elegant way.
Kindest Regards,
Georgia-Ann Edwards
Belleville, IL
couldn’t agree more….
@Georgia-Ann Edwards,
Agreed. But at least, aside from the fact that it took place in the hospital, he died what sounds like a beautiful death, with people who cared about him there and with his favorite music. It sounds like the medical team was very compassionate and gentle. And why shouldn’t death be beautiful? As Dr. K. always said, it’s a part of life.
Julie
I hate that the Patriot Act is called the Patriot Act. It uses magic words (“patriot”) to make people think it’s a great thing. And I was embarrassed for this country when the new 1 WTC was originally going to be called the GODDAM FREEDOM TOWER! Oooh… Once again, magic words. And Bushisms. God, I hate that creepy little monkey.
Julie
I think we need to get back to basics Constitutional values. The politics of greed and self-interest are not American. What is tort-reform? It is the erosion of the jury verdict system guaranteed by the US Constitution. True tort reform would also limit insurance company premiums where there is little, if any. exposure and liability left under the common law. However, just the opposite is true. We have laws requiring us to bu insurance products, even though to do so makes us less competitive in the global economy. Where is the balance? Does anyone truly believe that insurance companies and Wall Street bankers are benevolent engines for the good of the Republic?
We are forced to endure sky high insurance premiums, imposed by law to secure us against no real exposure. After almost 20 years of tort reform have your insurance premiums been reduced? The life of the elderly victim is now worth less than the younger worker due to non-economic damage caps. Shades of Soylent Green? Is this a good thing? Insurance company profits have skyrocketed. Meanwhile, the intellectual honesty of the so-called “rule of law” is farcically prostituted to the highest bidder. That is the reason why the founding fathers put the jury trial as a fundamental right. They knew that the judges could and would become mere appendages of the controlling oligarchy. We are seeing the end of our ideals. America is becoming a whorehouse where the ideals of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Franklin are trivialized and sold in the back alleys for nickels and dimes.
Well that is the way the law is written. If you don’t like it, change the law. Right. But the plain meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Here is a quote from a “strict constructionist” jurist, a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court no less, which was used to overturn the longstanding common law of the Somerset decision (1772).
“The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.” Dredd Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
Chief Justice Justice Taney’s entire career is judged by this decision which overturned a state’s right to decide whether men and women on its soil were in fact free. So too shall the Judges in our times be critically evaluated by lawyers, legal scholars and their fellow citizens by their decisions, written and published for all to see in perpetuity. Fieger is a gifted lawyer and should contribute articles which show historically and intellectually the perversion of the law by the so called think tanks such as the Mackinac Center.