Monday, September 8, 2008

Travel: is it a right?

Is travel a right? Can the Federal Government prohibit travel in any way, form, or means, or regulate the travel of a citizen upon the public throughfares, rivers, highways, or in international travel without the commission of a crime?

At the core of this question comes the question if the government has the power to prevent the freedom of movement. Is there, anywhere within the Constitution, the power to restrict, or limit travel of any citizen within, or outside of the United States?

If such a power were exercised, could not one reduce the nation to slavery simply by restricting travel, within the Several States, as well as without? Could not the people be reduced to only travelling where and how the government demanded? is this not the definition of totalitarianism, the definition of that which we fought against in Russia, in Germany?

Your papers please. The act of travel becomes a crime, written not by the law, but by the need to control. Any person travelling without the passport, the writ from their wise and glorious masters upon the Capital Hill becomes even more a servant of the government, and a servant by involuntary means.

Was this not the writ for which we instituted juries? Was it not, as well, the writ for which we instituted prohibitions against attainder, and the ex-post-facto application of laws?

Should such a measure be borne, it becomes an outright assault upon the natures of mankind. Mankind travels, wanders, changes, mentally and emotionally evolves. Societies, as well, change, intermingle, and evolve. This is the measure and writ of our freedom, that we may, can, and must travel.

Should they not permit travel, in one case, cannot a case be made for the next? Has not our gracious government proposed, implemented, and punished for the violations of codes and statutes that have been written, not for the purposes of the public good, but for the purposes of the enrichment of the exchequer?

If we, as a people, were so blind as to ignore, to tolerate, to grant the nature, the purpose, and the privilege of humanity upon the government, which, by its nature, destroys both society and humanity, then what is there left?

The government has no rights, it has only powers. It is the nature of government, as said before, to restrain the excesses of man, and the only power which it has to restrain those excesses is the power of the fist, of the court, of the jail. It exercises power over the economy now, with our lassitude and permission, exercises power over thought, over speech, over ideals, and ideas, and attempts to legislate its own version of morality upon the rest, without looking upon the nature of morality.

Morality, by its nature, is a thing that is determined by society. It is not, and never has been, determined by laws. When laws restrain laws, hoever, when are the laws broken? When do the people gain the power, the right, and the commitant duty to restrain the government against actions contrary to its grant of power?

And are we really so blind as to state, irrevocably, that because we granted the power to the government, we cannot take it away, for the government is too powerful?

And should that government be so powerful as to ignore its role of servitude to the people, and to the society... what is left?

Shall we petition? Vote? Remonstrate? Shall we supplicate? Shall we beg for the good fortune of the government, for a sop from those rich enough to control the government, to make our lives a little easier?

Safety via slavery is only trading one abuse for another. Anarchy cannot stand, nor can totalitarianism. Law is necessary for a country, but can only exist when in its eyes there is no privilege under the law, nor deprivation under the law, for any class of persons.

We must ask ourselves, then, for what ends do our government work? There is no good measure, for our government has grown too obscure, too large to measure directly, but shall we measure the indirect means by which we may?

Our food prices rise, our oil prices rise, our electrical prices skyrocket, and we are denied the ability to produce many things both necessary and good for the economy of the country. Research is stifled in the name of public safety, the guardians of our food and drugs pass materials that are found to be grossly unsafe, and are funded in a large part by those it is supposed to be observing.

Our money grows worth less and less, and ultimately is worthless, our children are injected with mercury-bearing vaccinations of dubious worth, doped with medications for hyperactivity, bombarded with caffeine and sugar, bolstered with vitamins, prevented from playing for fear of the poor dears hurting themselves, prevented from trusting for fear of someone hurting them, prevented from learning to investigate, to think, to research, and to question.

Why then, would these assaults be placed upon a world of free men? Can any other argument be advanced in their defense, other than the desire to make those men less free?

When the family unit crumbles, and values and ideals weaken, when morality falls sway to practicality and expediency, when the very rights of mankind fall before the altar of false security, what argument can one make for the results?

When we are educated on what we 'deserve' but not upon what is our right, how can we make educated decisions upon what is right or wrong? How can we, ethically, make decisions when ethics is never taught?

And how can we allow our government to educate our children? If we cannot afford to educate them at the local level, then does it not fall back to the state to the funds? The Federal government was never allowed nor should it ever have had the power to dangle funds before the states, and to pretend it was not a poisoned fruit.

With any bribe, any monies, any created incentives, are there not also bound upon those commitant conditions?

And do our states, our representatives, have the power to alter the agreement with the federal government without the consent of those thus governed?

If we have the right to vote, and such a right cannot be based upon any status of mankind, by what power is that right removed? If we have a right to be active in our government, save for infamous crimes and treason, is it not the right of the people to exercise that right?

If we have the right to self-protection, to self-actualization, to self-will, is not travel central to that right? If we have the right to redress of our grievances, the right to remonstrate with the government, is not travel also central to that right?

If we have the right to representation, as well, is it not a right to call those representatives, and senators, to task for their failures?

And should there be no record of a law's passage, no vote, no count, no role call, can it be truly a law?

And so they bind still more chains upon us, to prevent our travel, our rights, our privileges and immunities granted, not by government, but by the state of humanity itself.

Can any man elucidate more upon these things? Can any man deny the pattern carried out? Oh, insidious argument could be brought that all of these things are necessary and proper, but how could the exclusion of travel to use the right of free speech be allowed, in the very center of the nation's capitol? Is security such an overriding concern that the voice of the citizens must be prevented from the halls of the congress which represents them?

Is security also such an overriding concern that many can be arrested, not for action, but for the suspicion that they may intend to do an action?

If these things have a just, and valid purpose under the Constitution, I challenge any man to expound upon them. Convince me of them. If the powers and purposes of the constitution extend to this point, show me where and how, and bring it forth onto the public forum, to be read and exposed.

To quote a wise and just man, "This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings."

No comments: