"Sorry, were these yours, ma'am? Must've mis-read the warrant..."

In case you hadn't seen it:

Exclusive: Feds confiscate investigative reporter's confidential files during raid

I've remarked previously that a "police state" is not a condition wherein you could have your phone tapped, be followed/tracked by police for any reason at all (e.g.: by GPS, without any particular reason, as it is now permitted), have your home searched and have whatever they feel like seizing do so (see news story link above), or be arrested and taken away under whatever pretense (where do I start with that?). It's that any of those things could happen to you or someone you know and there would not be a lot, practically speaking, you or anyone else could do about it. In addition, trying to do something about it may place one at enough risk that if you do ask for help or assistance, others are too intimidated to try. Am I the only who thinks that, given the NSA's "hi-jinx", the erosion of post-arrest rights and guarantees of Constitutional protections (e.g.: you now have to explicitly say you are invoking the 5th Amendment in order for it to hold up), as well as protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, that we're coming pretty dat-burned close to it-- if not already there? Sure, the US has some way to go before looking like the former East Germany. But if the East Germans had had the kind of computer technology we now do, would they have really needed the Stazi? Or if they had had them, would most of them not have been sitting behind desks reviewing the "alerts" that computer programs sent them, telling them to review some of the more "interesting" conversations? Of course, open criticism of the government and its officials is still quite tolerated, at least as long as you're not in a position to do them too much practical harm. But I wonder-- for how much longer? After all, it wasn't too long ago that the idea that our own gov't would have actually set up a 24/7 surveillance system of all our phone calls seemed utterly preposterous. Now, not so much. And oh yeah, so was the idea that we'd be facing $20+ trillion in debt as a nation, too. Now here it is, breathing down our necks, with no sign of it slowing down as it is clearly set to bolt past that figure with a sky's-the-limit target.

Personally, I'm not too impressed by how the 21st century is starting off. I think we could have done a lot better.

What, no NASA site updates or Yellowstone tours? Shutdown 2013, Day 2...

The recent shutdown of the federal government has created a lot of frustration, and rightfully so. Despite the partisanship among political leaders and ordinary citizens alike acted out in person and in social media of all kinds, this power the Congress (collectively) has to defund the executive branch is in fact exactly the kind of power the Founding Fathers wanted it to have-- just not for the reason it is currently being exercised. In fact, quite the opposite.

The power of the purse the Constitution grants the Congress (Art. I, sect. 7, clause 1) was meant as a means of stopping dead in its tracks any effort by the executive branch (i.e., the president) to take some part of a military force authorized by Congress for purpose A to suddenly be redirected by the president to purpose B. The Constitution was written to give the Congress the power to raise and finance an Army and Navy (no Air Force back then!), declare war, and to grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" (Art. I, sect. 8, clauses 11, 12, 13). That last is very important. Most people don't know what those are. At the time, these were orders issued by a government granting legal license to a private or public entity (usually private, and usually naval forces - hence the name "privateers", which described ships that operated under these licenses) the right to attack, capture, "put to light" (i.e., burn), or otherwise execute what would be considered a wartime military operation, such licenses exonerating the attacker from legal sanction for their actions. (Note these are not the same as the "Writs of Fire and Sword" issued by monarchs in Europe; such were used to deal with domestic law-breakers or rebels.) Basically, with this writ in hand, a ship goes from being an outlaw pirate ship to being an instrument of foreign policy-- provided they operated within the confines of the license. But what is significant is the Constitution explicitly mandates that the Congress shall have the power to authorize less-than-war military operations-- not the president.

In addition, within the Congress, the Constitution also mandates that all funding bills must originate in the House of Representatives (Art. I, sect. 7, clause 1). The Senate can pass a resolution asking for a new program to be created, for example, but cannot first propose a funding bill for it. It can ask for one, and that is often how things happen, but the initial bill of funding has to start in the House.

Now, to take things to today. The Congress is, even in its partisan way, exercising a power that the Founding Fathers clearly wanted it to have. But the executive branch employs nearly all government workers, from armed forces members to anyone working in our national parks, in federal entitlement program offices (e.g.: Medicare, Social Security, etc.), federal-level police such as the FBI and DEA, etc. Yet, the Founders' intent was not to see this power used to defund parts of the government that were not charged with military roles. It was meant to allow the Congress to stop the president from misusing his Congressional authorizations to go to war or oversee the execution of lesser such authorizations.

The entire utility of Congress' power to fund/de-fund the government's operations (for all current intents, the executive branch's operations) has been turned on its head. Due to previous laws passed, instead of this power being unchecked, over 80% of federal employees are deemed "critical", including members of the armed forces. Thus even in a de-funding situation like this, they are still getting paid and much of the government is in essence, still very much open for business. This means the president could still mis-allocate members of the armed forces relative to the mandate he has received from Congress for their employment. As for defunding things like NASA, our national parks, and the EPA-- I doubt the Founders ever imagined that such relatively humdrum, benign things would be financially starved out due to a partisan political battle on Capitol Hill.

This power of the purse the Congress has should be maintained; such as they are, they are our elected officials. How and whether they allocate our tax dollars is a critical job function we elect them to exercise, despite the fact many of us disagree with how they are doing it. That's what elections are for, though: to replace poor representatives. Its utility is still entirely defensible. The problem is that the purpose of its application has now been undermined as time has stretched on since 1787. Now it is used for purposes never intended and its original purpose isn't even being permitted. How to fix it? May I suggest that its original intent and scope be re-asserted and that for any given vote on de-funding the government, the Congress be compelled to mandate across-the-board cuts to funding or even limit their de-funding power to the armed forces. How to make them do this is hard to imagine, however; an amendment to the Constitution? Even the most ordinary such propositions are routinely tabled. New laws? Try getting these proposed approaches supported by anyone elected to Congress, regardless of party affiliation.

All in all, I doubt Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton would be pleased with what we are seeing today.