Mother Mary Rants

If the current U.S. Supreme Court thinks that abiding strictly by foundational precedents is prudent and necessary, it should take to heart "Ex Parte Milligan," a case the Supreme Court decided in 1866. A Southern-sympathizing civilian attorney named Lambdin (really!) P. Milligan was arrested by the Union army in 1864 for trying to release rebel prisoners of war; he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by a military tribunal. The Supreme Court freed Milligan, and wrote:

"No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people. ... By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers, or the clamor of an excited people. ...

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of [people], at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of [humanity] than that any of [the Constitution's] provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism....

"This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if [the right to suspend any part of the Constitution during a time of war] is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. ... For this, and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary disturb....

"In every war, there are men of previously good character, wicked enough to counsel their fellow-citizens to resist the measures deemed necessary by a good government to sustain its just authority and overthrow its enemies; and their influence may lead to dangerous combinations." For example, handing over Congress's power to the President; allowing the President to annul all or parts of new laws through "signing statements" (including his announced decision to imprison and torture whomever he pleases, at any time he pleases, for whatever reason can be passed off as national security); attempting to annul the First Amendment (the Flag Desecration Act); attempting to deprive whole classes of citizens of their inalienable rights (homosexuals, would-be immigrants); and handing out tax cuts outrageously tilted in favor of the top 0.1 percent, and then claiming that anyone who notices is engaging in "class warfare."

In a different case, judge Learned Hand wrote, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." Driven by assiduously whipped up fears, have we already given up too much of our liberty to the imperial presidency?