On April 25,  US president Joe Biden announced his intention to seek re-election in 2024.

“The question we’re facing,” Biden says in his announcement video, “is whether in the years ahead, we have more freedom or less freedom. More rights or fewer.”

“I know what I want the answer to be,” he continues, “and I think you do, too.”

Of course, it’s not about what anyone “wants” the answer to be. It’s about what the answer actually is.

The number of our rights doesn’t change, because we don’t get our rights from presidents, elections, or constitutions.

We get them from what the Declaration of Independence refers to as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

We have them because we’re human beings, not because Joe Biden, or anyone else, sits in the Oval Office.

The “freedoms” Biden refers to are entirely a question of whether or not he and his fellow politicians respect those rights.

More than 50 years in politics proves that no, Biden doesn’t respect them. His version of a “right” is the privilege of living as Joe Biden orders us to live.

And those orders can turn on a dime. Note, for example, the skid marks left on various campaigns trails by his sudden switches from “pro-life” to “pro-choice” (2019), from “pro-death-penalty” to “anti-death-penalty” (2019), from “marriage is between a man and a woman” to “marriage equality” (2012), and from “build the wall” to “build the wall but phrase it differently” (2013).

It’s almost as if he says whatever he thinks his base wants to hear, because he thinks that’s what his base wants to hear, so that he gets re-elected.

Just like his most probable general election opponent, Donald Trump.

Every four years, I hear from upstart, dark horse candidates that “we can do better.” But can we?

Political power lends itself well to holding onto political power. So much so that that seems to be its main use by those who grasp it even once.

Which explains why our two mostly likely future presidents are two age-befuddled geezers who plainly don’t live in the real world now, if ever they did, and why Capitol Hill is swarming with Senators who can’t find their car keys without pulling staffers off of “look for a good sale price on adult diapers” duty to help.

The only real term limit is death of old age. And America’s looking pretty long in the tooth itself.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In a letter to the editor of the Washington Post (“The Constitution demands the debt be paid. Period.”), one Maurice F. Baggiano claims:

“As long as public debts are authorized by law, they may not be questioned and must be paid. That’s the import of Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.”

Mr. Baggiano seems to be deeply confused as to what the Constitution, and the law, require, and to believe that they somehow magically compel Congress to raise the “debt ceiling” — that is, to borrow MORE money — by away of paying off what they already owe.

They don’t. Congress could, with at least as much fidelity to the Constitution and the law, cut spending and dedicate more of the revenues it raises from taxation to paying down its debt.

And Congress could, with at least as much fidelity to the Constitution and the law, simply default on that debt. An obligation to recognize the “validity” of a debt is not the same thing as an obligation to pay that debt.

If you don’t believe me, ask any of the tens of thousands of Americans who default on their mortgages, and have their homes foreclosed on and sold at auction, every year. Few if any of those borrowers contest the “validity” of their debts. They just can’t, or won’t, pay up.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution ascribes to Congress the power to “borrow Money on the credit of the United States.”

The 14th Amendment says that “[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Neither section, nor any other, requires Congress to pay its bills.

The United States, as Alex J. Pollock notes at The Hill, has previously defaulted on its debts no fewer than four times, three of them since the ratification of the 14th Amendment. While doing so certainly entails consequences, it’s obviously not fatal, else modern world maps would no longer advertise something called “Argentina.”

And notice the bait-and-switch pulled between the two constitutional sections. One minute we’re talking about congressionally incurred debt of the United States (aka the federal government). Then it suddenly becomes “public” debt (i.e. we, rather than the borrowers, get put on the hook).

Far be it from me to “question” the “validity” of whatever debts 535 politicians in Washington may have entered into. That’s between them and their creditors. But I certainly question the “validity” of the notion that anyone other than those politicians could be rightly held responsible for paying those debts. I didn’t co-sign the loans. Nor was I ever asked to do so. How about you?

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

The RESTRICT Act — currently winding its way through Congress — would empower the US Commerce Department to “identify, deter, disrupt, prevent, prohibit, investigate and mitigate transactions” that “pose an undue or unacceptable risk to U.S. national security or the safety of U.S. persons.”

The RESTRICT Act’s more common name in the popular consciousness is “the TikTok ban,” even though the bill doesn’t mention TikTok and pretty much allows the US government to ban (well, try to ban, anyway) any Internet app which the government finds inconvenient to its purposes in any given way at any given time.

What’s a “transaction?”  The bill defines it as “any acquisition, importation, transfer, installation, dealing in, or use of any information and communications technology product or service, including ongoing activities such as managed services, data transmission, software updates, repairs, or the provision of data hosting services.” In other words, any action taken on the Internet.

Oh, and despite some contrary claims by “fact checkers,” the use of Virtual Private Networks. The bill explicitly covers any “transaction”  “designed or intended to evade or circumvent the application of this Act,” and VPNs are certainly designed to do exactly that.

What determines whether a transaction endangers “national security?” A politician or bureaucrat has to assert that it involves an “adversary” (not an “enemy” — the US hasn’t declared war on another nation in more than 80 years) of the United States, namely  China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, or any other country the Secretary of Commerce might happen to take a sudden dislike to.

What are the penalties for conducting prohibited “transactions?” Civil fines of up to $250,000, criminal fines of up to $1 million, and prison sentences of up to 20 years.

Politicians love to quack about “buy American,” but in this case they seem to be intent on going with an import. The RESTRICT Act is just a clone of the Great Firewall of China (and the Internet restrictions imposed by those other “adversaries”).

My mother taught me to never complain about something without proposing an alternative, so here goes:

Instead of letting the politicians RESTRICT us, why don’t we RESTRICT them in their attempts to “reduce” us, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, “under an absolute despotism?”

How? Well, that’s the sticky part. The Constitution, even with a clearly written First Amendment has clearly failed to protect us from the depredations of the political class such as the unambiguously unconstitutional RESTRICT Act. So has choosing “representatives” in “elections.” They’re the very people pulling this kind of shenanigans on us!

What they’re trying to do, in so many words, is use legislation to make peaceful revolution impossible. And as JFK warned us in 1962, doing that makes violent revolution inevitable.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY