By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, June 23, 2016
In September of 2014, Senate Democrats voted to repeal
the First Amendment. They were enraged by a Supreme Court decision holding that
ordinary constitutional protections for free speech prohibited the government
from punishing political activists who had shown a film critical of Hillary
Rodham Clinton in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election. This was a
straightforward case of classical political speech — critics of Mrs. Clinton
arguing that she’d make a poor president and distributing a film making that
case — and Democrats, including every single Democrat in the Senate, insisted
that that isn’t what the First Amendment is intended to protect.
They started at the beginning, and are making their way
down the Bill of Rights, with the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. The
Second Amendment holds that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed,” while the Fifth provides that no one may “be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” These are what are
known as civil rights, meaning the
rights associated with citizenship,
rights having to do with the relationship between people — or “the People” as
the Constitution puts it — and their government.
Many Americans do not think of the right to keep and bear
arms as a civil right, but they are mistaken. It helps to understand things
from the point of view of the Founders and the 18th-century radical liberals
whose ideas shaped our republic. Prior to the American founding, the right to
keep and bear arms was generally limited to the aristocracy; it was, like the
possession of a title or a coat of arms (coat of what?), a bright and dramatic dividing line between the ruling
class and the ruled classes, between the Whos and Whoms of society. Arguments
about licensing the carry of weapons are hardly new: Caravaggio was arrested
for carrying without a license (a sword, in his case) in 1598 near the Piazza Navona
in Rome at 3 a.m.
The bearing of arms is a sign of citizenship, which is to say, of being a full participant in
government who acts through it, as opposed to subjectship, the state of being a passive being who does not act
through government but who is acted upon. In that sense, it is like the ability
to vote or to be eligible for service in government. Frederick Douglass
understood this linkage perfectly, inasmuch as these ideas were much better
understood in those more literate days. “A man’s rights rest in three boxes,”
he said. “The ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box. Let no man be kept
from the ballot box because of his color. Let no woman be kept from the ballot
box because of her sex.” The militias contemplated by the Second Amendment were
armed citizen volunteers who could act to use the force of arms to keep the
peace in an emergency; they are entitled to act in the peacekeeping role
generally reserved for the state because, being the citizens of a republic,
they are the state, the very seat of
its sovereignty. The formal government is a provisional arrangement (hence
regular elections) constituted as a convenience. While the Second Amendment may
not codify a “right of revolution,” as some put it, the idea of armed citizens
pushing out a government that had become inconvenient, a burden on their
liberties rather than a guarantor of them, could hardly have been alien to a
group of men who had just risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor doing
just that.
The Fifth Amendment, with its emphasis on process, is an
expression of the republican ideal of justice, which is oriented toward process rather than outcomes. The classical liberal view is that justice has two
components, a procedural one and a substantive one, and that the law is
organized to ensure procedural justice, i.e., that all men are treated equally
and that no one is penalized without the formal criteria of the law having been
satisfied. This is why even the worst criminals, caught red-handed in the act,
are given trials with legal representation, the presentation of evidence, a
robust defense, and the consideration of a jury rather than being torn to
pieces in the street. Lynching a child molester might satisfy substantive justice in that the offender
did indeed deserve to die for his crimes, but it does not satisfy procedural justice, which is what the
law concerns itself with. Because mobs are prone to error and easily misled,
one of the functions of procedural justice is to protect substantive justice
(beyond a reasonable doubt and all that), but it also exists to ensure the
orderly functioning of a society under the rule of law, which is why we
generally accept the enforcement of unjust or unwise laws (e.g., the
prohibition of marijuana) while we work to change them.
It is a measure of the corruption of the Democratic party
and its ability to inspire corruption in others that John Lewis, once a
civil-rights leader, is today leading a movement to strip Americans of their
civil rights based on secret lists of subversives compiled by police agencies
and the military. Perhaps it has not occurred to Representative Lewis that his
mentor, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., also was on a secret government
list, as indeed was Lewis himself under the watchful eye of J. Edgar Hoover.
The Democrats demand that Americans be stripped of their
Second Amendment rights with no attention paid to the Fifth Amendment, to due
process. They propose that Americans be stripped of their legal protections
under the Bill of Rights even when they have not been charged with, much less
convicted of, a crime. They propose that this be done on the basis of a series
of secret government lists, whose contents, criteria, and keepers are treated
as state secrets.
You cannot call yourself a “liberal” and endorse that.
You cannot call yourself a “liberal” and endure that.
The Democratic party in 2016 is not a liberal party. It
is a party that is working diligently to rescind free-speech rights on one
front and to undermine due-process protections on another. It has abandoned the
notion of procedural justice in pursuit of substantive outcomes demanded by its
supporters, the rule of law be damned. There is a term for the armed pursuit of
justice, real or perceived, outside the rule of law, and that term is
“lynching.” The Democrats have lynching in their political DNA, and they seem
to be unable to evolve past it. Ironically, their abandonment of due process
and their flirtation with tyranny are reminders of one of the reasons why the
Founders believed it necessary to have an armed citizenry.
That is an unpleasant thing to contemplate. Better that
all of us, conservatives and the genuinely liberal alike, should demand the
rule of law, due process and all, even for our political opponents, even when
we do not like the outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment