Our judges, leaders, law-makers, and war-fighters swear to protect the Constitution. Others argue it is inconvenient to do so, and the police should be transformed into a quasi-legal militia force to fight “actual criminals” (as opposed to what? de jure criminals?)
I do not worry too much about over-aggressive cops as a public menace. Where I live, the actual criminals are menace enough…
I am sympathetic to this argument. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, even if we industrialize death to defend it. Deep in our violent creed is the conviction that there are some things so dear, we expect others to die for it, if not ourselves.
While Dr. Henry Gates is clearly a Hero of the Constitution for standing up to the rogue (and armed!) Sgt. Crowley, others insist that Crowley is a Hero of the Peace for standing up to a rude (and impatient!) home owner.
So given our Constitution or Peace for our war-fighters what do we choose? All but pacifists, it seems, would choose the Constitution. Given our Constitution or Peace from “real criminals” what do we choose? Many choose Peace.
To get to the answer to this dilemma, of course, we need to go through the horns.
We need to stop criminals from ever being born in the first place.
We had a President opposed to manipulating life before it was formed. That’s over.
We will have Peace and we will have our Constitution.
We will have new generations better than any in history.
We will live in a world, radically artificial twice over.
We havenâ€™t begun to see what it will hold.