With President Trump’s deployment of U.S. troops to Los Angeles, this is a good time to review the deep antipathy that America’s Founding Fathers and our American ancestors had toward “standing armies,” which was the term they used for the national-security state form of governmental structure under which we have all been born and raised.
This is especially true given that Trump has indicated a disdain for due process of law, has suggested a desire to suspend habeas corpus, has demonstrated a dislike for freedom of speech, has shown a proclivity for ruling by executive decree, has raised taxes without specific consent of Congress, has ignored judicial orders, has displayed a proclivity for declaring national emergencies, and has shown a contempt for judicial interference with the exercise of his powers.
The Founding Fathers and our American ancestors hated large, permanent, and powerful military-intelligence establishments. The reason was simple: they understood that standing armies, not foreign nations or entities, were the greatest threat to their freedom and well-being.
Let’s assume that President Trump decides that he needs to exercise omnipotent powers to achieve his goal of keeping America safe from illegal immigrant “invaders,” terrorists, violent criminals, and drug dealers. Under our system of government, he runs into a problem — the Constitution, which limits his powers to those enumerated in the Constitution itself. Moreover, the Bill of Rights imposes express restrictions on the exercise of omnipotent powers.
What is Trump to do? On the one hand, he feels that he needs omnipotent power to achieve his goal of keeping America safe. On the other hand, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which the judicial branch enforces, stand in the way of his exercise of omnipotent powers to achieve his goal.
Trump decides to declares a “national emergency,” which he then cites as the justification for exercising omnipotent power. He begins ruling by decree, instructs Congress to remain deferential and supportive, and orders the military to maintain “law and order” across the land. He orders a 20 percent increase in tariffs and income taxes on the American people to increase payments to the national-security establishment.
One big problem arises, however. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not have an “emergency” exception that authorizes the exercise of omnipotent powers. There is good reason for that. The Framers and our American ancestors understood that “emergencies” and “crises” have always been the time-honored way for rulers to justify the exercise of dictatorial powers. The Reichstag Fire, by which terrorists firebombed the German Parliament building, serves as a good example. Hitler used that “emergency” to secure passage of the Enabling Act, which gave him “temporary” omnipotent powers.
The problem, however, is that ever since the Great Depression, the federal courts, just like Congress, have shown a proclivity toward deferring to the president when it comes to “national emergencies” or “national crises.” But let’s assume that the federal courts declare Trump’s use of a national emergency or a national crisis to be illegal under the Constitution.
Trump, however, decides that keeping America safe trumps those judicial rulings. He decides that he is going to ignore them on grounds of “national security.” Then what?
That’s where Trump’s standing army comes into play. When the courts try to enforce their order through contempt citations, Trump orders his national-security establishment to do whatever is necessary to prevent any judicial interference with his goal of keeping America “safe.”
Moreover, when nation-wide protests break out over Trump’s exercise of omnipotent powers, Trump uses this new “crisis” to order the deployment of troops in cities across the nation, with the aim of putting down the violent protestors and reestablishing “law and order” in America. To ensure that people get back in line and comport themselves as “good” citizens, the president orders the military and the CIA to rendition prisoners to either the Pentagon-CIA prison/torture center at Guantanamo or the terrorist confinement center in El Salvador.
One thing that Trump could most certainly count on: his loyal supporters, who would be screaming in support of his nationwide military crackdown that is restoring “law and order” to the nation and also keeping America “safe” from the “invaders,” terrorists, and criminals.
At that point, who could oppose or resist the overwhelming power of the Pentagon, the vast military establishment, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI that is being exercised to fulfill Trump’s goal of keeping America “safe”? No one could. Americans would now be full-fledged citizens of a land of dictatorship. The president’s omnipotent power over the nation would be complete. He would now wield the omnipotent power to arrest anyone, incarcerate them, torture them, and even execute them. There would be no due process of law, habeas corpus, or trial by jury. Silence or support would sweep across the land. Don’t forget, after all, that the federal courts have held that in the “war on terrorism,” the Pentagon and the CIA already wield the powers of assassination, torture, and indefinite detention, including for American citizens.
Here is how James Madison put this matter: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”
Here is what Patrick Henry stated: “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”
Henry St. George Tucker put it this way: “Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
Originally publised by the Future of Freedom Foundation.
