What I am about to say will sound like the ramblings of an extremist. I know this. But as the late Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."
During the Nuremburg trials following WWII, several former German officials based the entirety of their defence on the fact that they did nothing more than follow orders. What more, they offered irrefutable evidence of the fact. Yet the question before the tribunal concerned was one of individual malfeasance. Without regard to their duty to obey the orders of their commanders, they had a moral and ethical duty to refuse orders which necessitated unconscionable barbarity.
I was reminded of this yesterday when I came upon a California Highway Patrol checkpoint. Now I didn’t know it was a checkpoint. Actually I saw orange cones and equipment ahead which led me to believe someone was working on the road. I was somewhat taken aback however when a uniformed officer beckoned me to the side of the road. My first thought was that I might have been travelling too fast in a construction zone. But to my utter shock, the officer informed me that the State of California has decided to randomly subject motorists to “on-the-spot” smog checks. Never mind the fact that my registration tags were current. In California you cannot receive these tags unless and until you submit evidence from a licensed Smog Test Centre, that your vehicle’s emissions fall below the State’s mandated threshold. From a legal standpoint I should not have been stopped unless (1)my tags were expired, (2)my vehicle was spewing smoke and/or (3)I had committed a moving violation or reasonably presumed to be wanted in connection with a crime. Nevertheless, I was being stopped so that the State’s police agencies could conduct an impromptu pre-emptive investigation to determine IF I had violated the law. What on earth could have prompted this gross violation of the law by the people sworn to uphold it?
Well, the State of California decided to crack down on illegal Smog Text Centres who, for a few extra greenbacks on the side, will doctor the results of the test to obtain a passing Vehicle Inspection Report. Rather than simply go after these violators, the State, in all its Stalinistic wisdom, arrogated to itself the authority to subject its citizens to these unlawful investigations. Now I know that some people will accept any government intrusion into their lives even when it involves obvious violations of one’s Constitutional rights. Some will even say, “Well, if you have nothing to hide, what’s the harm?” The harm in is the very act of conducting an investigation without cause. The harm is in being stopped by law enforcement agents not because I violated the law, but to allow them to see if I had. What is the next evolution of this concept? Will they begin conducting random searches of private homes just to see if one has anything illegal therein? “Extreme!” you say. Once you surrender the principle, there is no limit to its applicability. We have seen it time and again and not only here in the U.S.
For my part, I refused to allow them to conduct the test. Clearly this was an unxpected turn of events, for the poor patrolman had to call a supervisor for assistance. They simply had no idea how to handle this situation. Without going into the details of our exchange, I can only say that the officers were forced to concede my point and bid me goodbye with their apologies. Perhaps I could have been more cordial in my response to this assault but cordiality was beyond me. These people are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. They are charged with protecting and serving the people. Yet more and more they are becoming the government’s weapons against the people. They routinely behave as if their duty is to protect the government from the people. Just as those officials in Nuremburg were ultimately punished for failing to refuse immoral and unethical orders, this country’s police agencies should be expected to live up to the same standard. The orders in hand may not violate the laws of the land but they most assuredly violate every law of decency and humanity. Any man or woman capable of wearing the uniform is also capable of making this distinction.
My only regret is that I did not have the presence of mind to capture this on video during the initial encounter. I did however return later to record the scene. Unfortunately the cell-phone video isnt exactly stellar.
As our friend Pia considers a run for office, I commented that everyone who runs for office should be a Constitutionalist.
ReplyDeleteBut we know this is not the case. I can just imagine a room full of city councilmen patting each other on the back when they came up with this idea; never asking themselves, is this right or wrong? is this constitutional?
It is fair to say that this is typical of Leftism because they are the planners. They are the "Living Constitution" crowd. From slavery to the trail of tears, let that stigma rest on the Living Constitutionists.