Political Terrorism: On a collision course with the Constitution - Government power should be limited; regulations and codes go far beyond reasonable exercise of government authority

By:  Keith Allison, D.Dn.

© 30 May 2002 – All Rights Reserved

            There is nothing new about terrorism; it has been practiced from the time man first chose to hold dominion over others. Likewise, political terrorism dates back to when man first felt a vague urge for leadership within their growing communities. Although political terrorism is practiced in a subtler manner than the more common concept of physical terrorism, its effects are identical; in America, political terrorism is on a collision course with the Constitution.

            From a constitutional viewpoint, government power is limited to protecting the public health, welfare, morals and safety. But, government entities are betraying the public's trust by enacting administrative codes and regulations that go far beyond the reasonable exercise of government authority. The abuse has taken the form of corruption that is changing this nation from a republic governed by rules of law, to a government ruled by political expedience.

            Even legislators do not have the right to intrude into citizen’s lives, or preclude them from making decisions that profoundly affect their very existence. The state has wide power to regulate, but it may not ban the exercise of liberty interests. The Constitution is the core of all laws that affect the lives of citizens and residents of the United States; and nowhere, does it authorize the legislative branch of government to delegate its power to others. And yet, through the use of enabling legislation, un-elected bureaucrats routinely usurp that power.

            In uniting the original thirteen colonies into a republic, the Founding Fathers agreed the several states should hold the right of sovereignty, or police power of the state. This power was seen as a means of allowing each state to formulate, enact and enforce laws for the common good of the nations citizen; but these laws must pass constitutional muster. This power is great, but it was not construed as a means of creating a burden or hardship on the public, or for depriving any citizen of their liberty interests for the benefit of another. In the case of Compassion in Dying v. Washington, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals answered government’s attempts to control and thereby repress, human rights. Here, the court held: “If broad general state policies can be used to deprive a terminally ill individual of the right to make a choice, it is hard to envision where the exercise of arbitrary and intrusive power by the state can be halted.”

            If police power of the state is used to mandate state policy, it cannot be overly intrusive into the fundamental right of citizens to exercise their freedom of choice. If a law is to pass constitutional muster, it must significantly, not arbitrarily conform to a vague political agenda, and protect the public health, welfare, safety, or morals. As held and reaffirmed by the 9th Circuit in Compassion in Dying, tenuous argument does not satisfy this constitutional mandate. Here, the court also held: “The Constitution and the courts stand as a bulwark between individual freedom and arbitrary and intrusive governmental power. Under our constitutional system, neither the state, nor the majority of the people in a state, can impose its will upon the individual in a matter so highly central to personal dignity and autonomy. Those who believe strongly that death must come without a physician’s assistance are free to follow that creed, be they doctors or patients. They are not free, however, to force their views, their religious conviction, or their philosophies on all the other members of a society, and to compel those whose values differ with theirs to die a painful, protracted and agonizing death.”

            One method of infringing upon the liberty of others is through the use of legislation that grants monopolistic covenants or restrictive power to a specific group, or combination of groups. While these monopolies are patently illegal, politicians routinely grant their favored minions such power. In the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 19.86.040, the state of Washington specifically deals with this aspect of the law; it states, “Monopolies and attempted monopolies are declared unlawful.” However, that has not stopped state regulators from granting monopolistic power to those who contribute heavily to their election war chests. As monopolistic tools, RCW 18.32, the Dental Practices Act, and RCW 18.30, the Denturist Licensing Act, are discriminatory and deprive the public of a specific liberty interest. That liberty interest is their right to choose their health care provider. Where the provision of full and/or partial dentures is concerned, it is well documented that there are no health related state or public interests to be protected.

            In the case of Long v. Chiropractic Society of Washington, the court held, “Elements of a monopoly are a contract, combination or other arrangement between two or more corporations, co-partnerships, or associations, which relates to produce or commodity and which has the purpose of fixing prices, limiting production, or regulating transportation of a product or commodity.” The court further held, “Monopolistic character of combination is not to be tested by what has been done in the past, but what may be done in the future.”

            Through the granting of professional monopolies, governments routinely suppress the publics right to freedom of choice. Through the enactment of these statutes, special interest groups routinely deny American citizens of the right to engage in many aspects of the free enterprise system. Government regulators have turned the regulatory system into a cash cow, and now, more than at any time in our history, our public servants are attempting to conceal their regulatory zeal behind the guise of somehow protecting the public health or welfare. In 1803, the United States Supreme Court held in the case of Marbury v. Madison, “Any act of Congress that is repugnant to the Constitution, must be void,” and “Congress has no right to alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.”

            Even though many statutes do not pass constitutional muster, the only way for the public to over-turn them, is to challenge their validity in a court of law; and, charlatans in government know this. These masters of deception also know that because of the exorbitant cost of litigation and seemingly endless time involved, few citizens have the time or resources to challenge such statutes.

Be they legislative statutes or administrative rules and regulations promulgated by the bureaucracy, we are coerced into obeying many rules, regulations, or laws that are clearly unconstitutional. And, as long as it remains prohibitively expensive to challenge constitutionally repugnant laws, this condition of quid pro quo will continue. As long as this prostituted view of the law prevails behind the façade of constitutional government, truth and justice will be the first victims in any judicial conflict between citizens and government. Seldom are members of the judiciary interested in the truth. Instead, they obey the orders they receive from their masters in government; all the while, members of the legislature take their orders from those with the largest bank accounts.

            In his first inaugural address, Theodore Roosevelt assessed the importance of the United States Constitution. He stated, “Upon the success of our experiment much depends, not only as regards our own welfare, but as regards the welfare of mankind. If we fail, the cause of free self-government throughout the world will rock to its foundation, and therefore our responsibility is heavy, to ourselves, to the world as it is today, and to the generations yet unborn.”

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

Back to Current Edition Citizen Review Archive LINKS Search This Site