Homeland Security
Article four section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
[Constitution of the United States of America]
"A wise and free people must focus their attention on many objectives. First is safety. The concept of safety relates to a wide variety of circumstances . . .At this time, I will discuss safety as it relates to the preservation of peace and tranquility against dangers from foreign arms and influence." Federalist Paper #3 [paragraphs 3-4]
"Security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. It will always be determined by these rules and no others." 41 [12]
"An infinite number of circumstances endanger the safety of a nation. For this reason, constitutional limits on the power to protect it are unwise. This power should equal the strength of all possible circumstances. And it should be under the direction of the same councils that preside over the common defense." 23 [4]
Even within the United States, will "force and right necessarily be on the same side? . . . Might not the minority party possess such a superiority of monetary resources, military talents and experience, or secret aid from foreign powers, to render it a superior military force? Might not a more compact and advantageous position tip the scale against a superior number that may be in a weaker situation, unable to quickly and effectively respond? Nothing is less realistic than imagining that in actual battles the larger number of citizens assures victory. Cannot a minority of citizens become a majority of persons by adding alien residents, mercenaries, or people in the State without voting rights? . . . In the tempestuous scenes of civil violence, [non-citizens] may give a superiority of strength to any party with which they may associate themselves." 43 [18]
Therefore, "what justifies limiting a defensive force when the force of offense cannot be limited? If a federal Constitution could chain the ambition or limit the exertions of all other nations, then it might prudently chain the discretion of its own government and limit the exertions for its own safety." 41 [11]
"Security against foreign danger is one of the primary objectives of civil society. It is an avowed and essential objective of the American Union. Federal councils must be entrusted with the powers required for attaining it." 41 [7]
Many people object to allowing standing armies during times of peace. However, "formal declarations of war have fallen into disuse. [If the Constitution banned the use of standing armies] an enemy would have to be physically within our territories before the government could begin drafting men for the protection of the state. We would have to receive the blow before we could even prepare to return it. A national policy of anticipating and preparing to meet a danger could not be done, because it is contrary to the genuine maxims of a free government. Therefore, we would expose our property and liberty to the mercy of foreign invaders, our weakness inviting them to seize the naked and defenseless prey because we were afraid that rulers--elected by us and ruling according to our will--might endanger our liberty by abusing the means necessary for its preservation." 25 [7]
But we must be very careful. "Safety from external danger is the most powerful motivator of national conduct. After a time, even the ardent love of liberty will diminish under its dictates. Wars violent destruction of life and property, and the vigilance under a continuous state of danger, will compel even those nations most attached to liberty to resort, for repose and security, to institutions that tend to destroy their civil and political rights. To be safer, they will risk being less free." 8 [4]
Protection of our liberties must be balanced by the need for safety. "Since before the Revolution, small garrisons on our Western frontier have been necessary. No one doubts that they will continue being indispensable, if only for protection against the ravages and plundering of the Indians. Occasionally, these garrisons must be supplemented by either the militia or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. . . . A permanent corps paid by the government amounts to a standing army in peacetime--a small one, indeed, but no less real for being small. This simple view of the subject clearly shows the impropriety of a constitutional prohibition of a standing army and the necessity of leaving the matter to the discretion and prudence of the legislature." 24 [11]
"Every part of a society is entitled to protection against invasion. The latitude expressed in the Constitution seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility but against ambitious vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors." 43 [15]
"Therefore, a standing force is dangerous at the same time that it may be necessary. On the smallest scale, it has inconveniences. On an extensive scale, its consequences may be fatal. On any scale, it deserves extreme caution.
"A wise nation combines all these considerations. And while it doesnt rashly exclude itself from any resource that may become essential to its safety, it will prudently diminish both the necessity and the danger of resorting to a resource that may be unfortunate to its liberties." 41 [13]
copyright 2002 by Mary E Webster
All references from:
The Federalist Papers: In Modern Language
Indexed for Todays Political Issues
Copyright 1999 by Mary E Webster
