Unalienable, or Alien?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson What is the purpose of government? The United States gets its definition from the Declaration of Independence as seen below: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." This stanza would suggest that the government is to work through the consent of the people; when it fails to do so, it is the "Right ofthe people to alter or abolish it". All US Governments since the ratification have sought to change or eliminate this truth. The first major attempt to mitigate the consent of the goverened was the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. This was fostered by John Adams, one of the nation's Founding Fathers. This act made it a federal crime to criticize the Congress or the President. Although repealed in 1801, it set the precendent for this type of Governemntal control of "Unalienable" rights. I mention all of this because of a recent law modification, passed in September 2006, called the Insurrection Act. First, a bit of history. In 1807, the Insurrection Act is passed to govern the President's right to deploy federal troops (military) within the United States. The goal was to limit the use of the military against the citizenry, and could only be used via an act of Congress. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed to prohibit the use of the US Military against US citizens. The end of the Civil War and Reconstruction left a very real fear, especially in the South, that the federal government would use military force to supervise Southern elections. This act was meant to prevent the Army from being used against US Citizens without an act of Congress, much like the Insurrection Act The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, however, changes all this. The President is now able to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The reason this is significant is because we now have the "Act of Congress" required by the Posse Comitatus Act. The president is therefore not violating this act, and can operate the military with impunity. It also expands the President's ability to declare martial law. So, how might these powers be used? The official line is to use them to supress terror and support for terror. However, it also leaves the very real possibility of it being used for any other reason the President sees fit. This may not necessarially coincide with the will of the people. Ironically, this Act can also be used to put down the peoples attempt to "alter or abolish" the government, since this is the definition (in some circles) of insurrection. So, the people have the right to abolish the government, and they also have the right to pay for a military that will stop them from attempting this. US Taxpayer pays $ => US Military is armed => US Military suppresses Taxpayer We should spend all our money so well.