Ashcroft

A commentor recently took me to task for not being a real libertarian.

You call yourself a libertarian when you obviously do not understand its meaning. How you could support the fascist policies of Ashcroft is astounding to me. You are NOTHING of a libertarian.

The commentor is correct, that I'm not really a libertarian, I'm actually a Republican with libertarian leanings. It even says so up there on the banner. But the curious part of the comment is about "supporting the fascist policies of Ashcroft". I don't believe I've expressed any opinions on Ashcroft or his policies. Up to now. Coincidently, I ran across this article in Reason, that talks about Ashcroft and Kerry and civil liberties.

This isn't the first time Kerry and Ashcroft have been at odds over civil liberties. In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides.

But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government—a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.

Accusing Ashcroft of trampling on Americans' civil liberties makes for wonderful campaign rhetoric, but it doesn't have the ring of truth. Clearly at odds with the notion that Ashcroft is somehow a closet fascist, whatever that may mean, is his position on the Second Amendment. In a May 17, 2001 letter to the National Rifle Association John Ashcroft said it is his view, and therefore the view of the Department of Justice that the right to keep and bear arms is a right reserved for individuals, not a right of the states to maintain well armed militias.

While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a "collective right" of the States to maintain militias, I believe that the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of "the people" which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted consistently throughout the Bill of Rights.

I don't happen to own any firearms, but my theoretical position on the Second Amendment is that I ought to be able to own a bazooka if I want one. The fact of the matter is that the right to keep and bear arms amounts to a symbolic check on government abuse of power. The citizens are clearly outgunned. But the important thing is that the government should trust its citizens and the citizens should be trustworthy. Ashcroft's position on the Second Amendment, and by extension the government's, is a clear statement that they trust the American people. This is not a small deal.

Comments

[Warren]

Like you, I have libertarian leanings, (I like to say, a small "l" libertarian or pragmatic libertarian). I often catch flack from both Liberals and Conservatives for my views.

Recently I caught hell from a Libertarian who was "appalled" at my defense of judge Roy Moore, because I felt that he was an honorable, principled man who had stood up for his beliefs and then paid the price without flinching.

I have never understood how Liberals and Libertarians could attack John Ashcroft in good conscience. If they would only look at his record without the magnifying glass of exaggerated ideology; they would see a principled man that does a difficult job with little thanks.

Without their over the top rhetoric, (i.e. fascist), they would have little to say.

[Bruce]

Good post. One of my main reasons to vote for Bush (or against Kerry, depending on how you want to look at it) is the possibility of Kerry nominating a Supremem Court Justice who holds the contrary view re: the 2nd amendment.

[Tom Bowler]

Kerry's judicial appointments would be sure to delight liberals and trial lawyers, but I suspect he will have an even harder time than Bush getting his nominees to the bench should he succeed in getting himself elected. The Democrat minority has set new precedents with their appointment filibusters. It's not unreasonable to expect payback if roles should reverse.

[Warren]

I have to admit, thinking of JK appointing federal judges or justices to the Supreme Court, gives me the creepy crawlies.

I am not so sure that the Republican good old boys in the Senate would block JK's appointments. They show to much of a tendency to bend over and grab their ankles for the sake of, "getting along", to suit me.

[Tom Bowler]

Warren, you make a good point about Republicans' willingness to "get along". They certainly haven't forced the issue on the constitutionality of the filibuster rules, which effectively impose a new super majority requirement for judicial confirmations.

[Warren]

Tom, I find it all quite disheartening.

The problems with our lawmaking bodies run so deep and the education/knowledge of the average voter is lacking in the very fundamentals required for responsible citizenship.

I have always had a firm belief that the inmates shouldn't be running the asylum, but the voters seem bound and determined to let the lawyers write the laws and regulations that govern our lives.

I'm not saying that lawyers are bad people, just that if we allow a particular group of people, in this case lawyers, to write our laws; that group of people will tend to favor laws which will benefit themselves. The effect over time is cumulative.

If our congressional representatives were composed of mainly doctors, policemen or librarians; we could expect laws and regulations to favor those groups. Especially if those professions were disproportionately represented over a period of decades.

You know as well as I do that the founders never intended for the legislators to become an elite class or envision that they would be professional politicians, (especially in the House of Representatives).

[Tom Bowler]

I'm optimistic - nervous but optimistic. I agree with what you're saying, but in spite of that I can't help but be optimistic because of the progress we've made over the past 30 years. Liberty's boundaries have been extended, and it's been because capitalism is the economic engine, socialism the brakes. More and more people are forced to recognize this.

We may have a close election this time but if we do it will be because of misinformation from the media. Interestingly, more and more people are aware of this. I see a John Kerry election as a temporary impediment to the progress being made. The media is pulling out all the stops to get him into office, but they're starting to notice the competition from the web. It forces them to be more honest in their reporting than they would like to be, and ultimately the truth will out.

We ought to cut the voters a little slack. They're just trying to make a living and might not have time for much else. But if we can help make them aware of what's going on, they'll get it. I think, supporting Bush for President is the thing that will help most. As I posted above, I heard him speak in Stratham the other day. His views on liberty and the responsibility the goes with it, his policy on demanding accountability and results in education, and his focus on creating an ownership society will all move us towards better government, because more people will have a stake and more people will understand this.

Keep the faith, buddy.

[Warren]

"Keep the faith, buddy."
Keeping the faith.

I will keep proltizin' and politisizin'! :-)

I live in Indiana and GW has the state sewed up. Knowing that, I still try to get people to vote for him.