The Democratic Party to this point has a straight-forward primary. Hillary Clinton represents the corrupt party establishment, while Bernie Sanders represents a socialist grassroots push to inject new life into the party. Simple? Simple enough.
Then there’s the Republican Party, which is becoming increasingly crowded with time as everyone short of the ghost of Ronald Reagan throws their hat in the ring.
One would expect a wealth of candidates to represent a diversity of ideas. Unfortunately, we can’t always expect that from politics. There seems to be a widespread similarity among the candidates, with few exceptions.
One of these issues is the Police State. After two terms of Barack Obama, one would expect Republicans to be weary of the controversial USA PATRIOT Act and NSA surveillance programs. While both were programs that originated under a Republican, they learned that apparently they won’t always hold office and another party may actually inherit this power.
That would cause them to rethink their position, right?
While he hasn’t formally declared, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is clearly campaigning as he parades around the country actually not blocking bridges. In a recent stop, he not only defended the Patriot Act, but he slammed perceived paranoia over the legislation and called for its full extension.
Governor Christie slammed “civil liberties extremists” for “exaggerated and ridiculous” fears of the Patriot Act, claiming that it was necessary for national security.
Let’s pretend, for the sake of taking the Governor seriously, that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t exist. Let’s pretend that the Constitution, the self-proclaimed “supreme law of the land”, doesn’t contain a Bill of Rights that protects individuals’ rights against the federal government.
Does Governor Christie now have an argument?
Let’s ask the ISIS gunman who crossed the border in Texas.
You might get intelligence, but intelligence isn’t very intelligent if there isn’t any intelligent use going on. And that is the problem with government.
That’s just one man though, who is hardly viewed as “tea party” anymore and is seen as more establishment. Let’s look at a probable candidate who is seen as more conservative.
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is a fan favorite. What did he have to say about the Patriot Act?
Governor Walker recently appeared on the Special Report with Bret Baier, who pushed him for a stance. While the Governor refused to firmly denounce or support reauthorization, he attempted to play it safe in stating the collected data is necessary and needs to be readily available.
Essentially, Governor Walker supports the Patriot Act without actually saying he supports the Patriot Act. Well played, Governor. He tiptoes like a professional politician on the big state.
These two are only Governors though, what about the Senators? Given that Congress exists as a check on presidential power, we can surely find opposition here. Right?
Enter Senator Marco Rubio. What does he think about the Patriot Act?
Senator Rubio has taken things to an extreme in favor of these Orwellian acts, pleading for Congress to permanently reauthorize the Police State. Apparently these are tools that help keep America safe. Again, there’s the case of the ISIS gunman in Texas and the open threat from ISIS to make this happen more.
We’re safe alright. Good job, big government.
What else could we expect though? Senator Rubio wants to waste all the country’s resources helping Planet Earth compete with the Moon’s total planetary crater count. Like colleagues John McCain and Lindsey Graham, it’s difficult for them to find a war, conflict, or act of aggression he doesn’t get excited about.
Speaking of Lindsey Graham, another Senator who has recently stated he is running for President and opponent of the President. Where does he stand?
Well like Senator Rubio, Senator Graham wants to permanently reauthorize the Patriot Act.
Do these guys get it? Let’s help them out a little bit.
The beautiful thing about the United States of America is we have a system of laws that govern society. These laws operate with the Constitution as its foundation.
Let’s just stop the civils lesson and lecture.
Here, we’ll simplify this:
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land”
-Article 6, Clause 2
Say what?! The Constitution is supreme?!
It gets better.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
So the document that is the supreme law states that we have the right to be secure? It states we can only be searched with a warrant and with probable cause?
It still gets better.
“[No person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
The supreme law states we have the right to be secure and can only be searched with a warrant and probable cause, while also having rights to proper due process of law?
There are of course exceptions. But unless their name is Rand Paul or possibly Ted Cruz, you better get used to Republican presidential candidates still loving their big government. Like President Barack Obama.