by Bob Barr | Mar 8, 2022 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily Caller Hopes that the current Supreme Court might at long last place even the mildest of limits on the federal government’s ability to hide behind a broad, virtually impenetrable “national security” shield were dashed last week when, in a pair of decisions, the High Court refused to make even a dent in the so-called “state secrets privilege” behind which Uncle Sam has hidden for nearly seven decades. The two decisions – one unanimous and the other with one of the more “conservative” justices (Neil Gorsuch) joining with one of the most “liberal” (Sonia Sotomayor) in dissent – leave intact a legal maneuver that since 1953 has permitted Uncle Sam to block any legal action that might reveal evidence the government does not want to be made public, even if for no reason other than to avoid embarrassment or if the information sought to be disclosed has already been made public. The so-called “state secrets privilege” (or “doctrine”) is not enshrined in any law, but is simply a judge-made rule that stops cold in its tracks any lawsuit or subsequent legal action brought against the federal government alleging official wrongdoing (including violation of an individual’s constitutionally guaranteed rights). All that government lawyers need do in order to invoke its protection is to claim that disclosure of material sought by private parties would harm “national security,” and ask the federal court hearing the matter to dismiss the proceedings out-of-hand. They can do this without having to disclose precisely what the actual “harm” to national security might be. I was among those who had hoped last December that the Supreme Court would use...
by Bob Barr | Mar 2, 2022 | Daily Caller Article |
Townhall Among the bleak, often harrowing images coming to us from Ukraine as it suffers a vicious invasion by Russia, there are images of hope and strength. Pictures of civilians lining-up to receive firearms or forming makeshift assembly lines to assemble Molotov Cocktails, are examples of something that many Liberals simply fail to grasp as a moving force of human nature – acts of self-preservation against those who would take away individual liberty. “The first and strongest desire God planted in men, and wrought into the very principles of their nature, [is] that of self-preservation,” John Locke wrote in 1689. The response of Ukraine citizens (who just days before might have been planning vacations or running errands) to arm and fight against Russian invaders, is perhaps one of the best examples in modern history of what Locke meant. Survival is an instinct of humanity, and self-preservation is its natural mechanism. Government, as our Founders clearly understood (and they knew Locke’s writings well), is – should be – instituted in order to preserve freedom and human life, not limit, or restrain it, whether by force or decree. This is a principle the Left seems never to understand or accept about the Second Amendment. Although liberals want to pretend the scope of the Second Amendment is a collective right only applicable to militias, or hunting at the most as an individual right, such a position is wholly at odds with the Amendment’s philosophical and historical foundation. The Second Amendment was, and continues to this day to be, a codification of the natural right to self-preservation, and self-defense. Regardless of whether a nation...
by Bob Barr | Feb 28, 2022 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily Caller Virtually every facet of civilian society in America has become openly and deeply politicized. It was only a matter of time before the curse of politicization hit the armed forces. The tipping point came in late January with a Department of Justice court filing in Connecticut, in which the Biden administration officially gave the green light for National Guard troops to unionize when on active state duty. Is this a terrible idea? Yes. But is it surprising? Not really. Once Lloyd Austin, President Biden’s Secretary of Defense, commenced his service at the Pentagon in early 2021 by declaring that “extremism” in the ranks is a top priority for the Defense Department, the political die was cast. The political football has now been passed from the Defense Secretary to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who gladly ran with the ball in the Connecticut case, announcing that the Department sees no problem with state-controlled National Guard personnel joining unions. (Currently, more than 400,000 men and women are subject to being called up for such state service.) The repercussions of this decision already are being felt in Texas, where groups upset with Gov. Abbott’s use of the Texas National Guard to assist in protecting the state’s border with Mexico (“Operation Lone Star”), are moving to enlist Guard members in that state to meet and organize collectively. The Abbott administration is fighting the move, which almost certainly will result in contentious and lengthy legal wrangling. The issue of unionizing National Guard units has been percolating quietly for several years, though not until the Justice Department’s January court filing in Connecticut has it reached the front burner....
by Bob Barr | Feb 22, 2022 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily Caller On Feb. 14, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave Canadians a Valentine’s Day present, invoking the draconian “Emergencies Act” and suspending a wide range of civil liberties otherwise enjoyed by his countrymen. Lest Americans conclude that our constitutional republic is safe from such facially dictatorial actions, they should know that under existing federal laws and the laws of every state, the president or a governor could take similar “emergency” action at any time they decide an “emergency” presents itself. COVID has demonstrated this is spades. Regardless of whether a real emergency exists prior to a president or governor invoking such powers, and regardless of whether such declaration is for a statutorily limited time, consequential damage to the fabric of a free society results. At a minimum, declaring an “emergency” and suspending individual liberties serves as a “warning” to citizens that they had best be careful what they say and do in the future. Trudeau’s actions in declaring a “national emergency” because of an irksome, but peaceful, trucker’s strike should cause Americans to pay far closer attention to “emergency powers” laws here at home. Doing so might force some of our countrymen to question the abject fear that has undergirded much of public policy in the United States since the terror attacks of 9/11 — made far worse by the manner in which governments at all levels have responded to the COVID pandemic in the past biennium. From a practical standpoint, as we see in Canada, it matters little whether the declaration of the “emergency” fits clearly within the four corners of the emergency law that is invoked. What...
by Bob Barr | Feb 15, 2022 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily Caller During and after the Watergate scandal that forced Richard Nixon in 1973 to resign from the presidency, there was widespread and bipartisan agreement that no one, not even the President of the United States, should be permitted to use the powers of the federal government to identify and punish individuals who harbored views and supported policies at odds with the administration’s. How times have changed. Half a century later, Democrats in Washington are empowering federal agencies to identify and prosecute individuals and organizations for nothing more than espousing or encouraging political views at odds with the official orthodoxy. This disturbing trend represents not a failure of any one agency or of certain media outlets; nor is it the result of one or a small number of government officials pushing a personal agenda. It represents a cultural shift away from objective accountability, toward an environment in which a significant swath of American society has come to accept, if not condone, the use of government power to push political agendas unhindered by the law or the Constitution. We are witnessing the institutionalization of government skullduggery that 50 years ago forced a president from office. The signs of this seismic shift are everywhere. Last October, the Attorney General Merrick Garland responded to a letter from the association representing school boards across the country that requested that the Department of Justice treat parents protesting school board actions as “a form of domestic terrorism.” In response to that letter, Garland issued a memorandum that, while not directly labeling protesting parents as “terrorists,” directed that Justice Department prosecutors and FBI investigators would target...
by Bob Barr | Feb 7, 2022 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily Caller President Joe Biden left the safe confines of the Oval Office last week to visit New York City, which is suffering under a massive rise in major crimes — two young police officers were murdered there just days before. Rather than use the visit to highlight real, workable solutions to rising crime rates in New York and other major American cities, the president spent the day calling for – no surprise here, folks – more gun control. While in the Big Apple, Biden called for more taxpayer dollars and new bureaucracies to curb the one factor he apparently considers to be at the root of rising violent crime rates everywhere – too many guns. He asked the Congress to pass legislation establishing, among other liberal shibboleths, “universal background checks” and a ban on “assault weapons and high capacity magazines.” Not once in his remarks did the president ask New York to do the one thing that has proven in the past to curb gun crimes – aggressive use of existing federal laws. For example, were Biden interested in true, bipartisan solutions rather than simply playing to the liberal gun-control wing of his party, he could have announced a reaffirmation of “Project Exile,” a program first implemented in 1997 by a Republican Virginia Governor, George Allen, and the U.S. Department of Justice under a Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Project Exile, which actually remains in operation in a limited number of cities even today, began as a highly-publicized initiative in early 1997 in Richmond, Virginia, which was experiencing a significant surge in firearms crimes. In response, federal and state...
