What it Means to Be a Citizen of the United States of America (Part 2 of 3)
Who Rules Whom?
The Constitution and our founders established a limited government where people govern through elected representatives, with the goal of creating “a more perfect union.” At first, we started with a clean slate. Under this system, America has become the freest and most prosperous nation in history. However, many now see our constitutional system as mostly nominal, controlled by non-elected agencies that influence citizens. Politicians, by nature, try to make their mark by taking action, making changes, and trying to improve conditions—all to serve their constituents and get re-elected. Every move they make is often shaped by the current political climate.
Many believe that the Constitution, starting with “We the People,” is being replaced by an elite, out-of-touch, and unaccountable administrative state that can rule without the consent of most American citizens. This suggests we live in an era of growing bureaucratic authoritarianism at every level of government, reflected in an administrative system that sometimes bypasses the Constitution, ignores the separation of powers, and replaces the rule of law with regulations and executive orders. Notice how easily the President can issue declarations almost at will without public approval through voting.
The checks and balances established by our founders are eroding, possibly leading toward an even more controlled society. The use of military force or engagement in combat once required Congressional approval, but since the end of World War II, it no longer realistically does. The powers of leadership have shifted through constitutional precedents and interpretations; the Constitution is now viewed as a living document, expanded as we go along, not something we are bound to follow strictly, as in the rules of the 18th century. For example, President James Madison wrote during the drafting of the Constitution, “The trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man,” which is why the Founders gave Congress, and only Congress, the sole power to declare war under Article I of the Constitution.
This fundamental rule has been repeatedly broken, especially since World War II, by multiple presidents of both major parties. The North never declared war on the Confederacy during the bloodiest war in American history; it was all orchestrated by presidential decrees on both sides. As a result, precedents have been set that have expanded and altered the President’s powers. Even more concerning is the authority to use nuclear weapons, which resides solely with the President—meaning he can effectively declare nuclear war, either offensively or defensively. Since their development, the American president alone has had complete authority over the nation’s nuclear arsenal. He can launch a pre-emptive strike at any time and against any target; there is no oversight of this power. I shudder at the possibilities this permits.
Do all citizens see themselves as Americans or something else? Do residents of Guam identify as Americans or Guamanians? Do people in Arizona consider themselves Hispanic if that relates to their ethnicity, or do they see themselves first as Americans? Puerto Rico and expatriates everywhere are all citizens of the United States; they just don’t happen to live here. Many American embassies overseas share two common features: there’s usually a protest outside for various reasons, and an even larger crowd requesting visas at the consulate. I saw this myself in Beijing, China, where protests were happening at one part of the embassy, and at the same time, the line for visas stretched around the block at the consulate.
Consider the belief that most Americans think they live in a country where they can exercise free will—the supposed ability or capacity of individuals to make decisions or take actions independently, regardless of any prior events or the overall state of the universe. Most of us are fairly certain that we have free will, though what that exactly means or how much it involves is not entirely clear; it remains a subject of debate what it truly signifies. As long as you don’t break any law or regulation—yes.
For example, simple choices like deciding what to have for dinner tonight or, more broadly, choosing which courses to enroll in as a college student or making various career decisions. Many, if not all of us, feel that we have free will; it’s very common for individuals to ignore laws and regulations and violate them repeatedly, whether intentionally or not, so long as they don’t get caught. Our court and legal systems are filled with those who transgress. Due to perceived freedoms, we have the largest prison population in the world, with over 1 in 100 people behind bars. We are criticized for this, but it’s actually a direct result of many people’s disregard for rules, regulations, and laws. Is exercising free will a positive aspect of American life?
Does Our Incarcerated Population Reflect That We Have Too Much Freedom, or is it Something Else?
Law Enforcement – Are the officers we rely on to maintain order effective? There are over 1.2 million sworn officers, including about 137,000 working in federal agencies. The authority and influence of the police, the FBI, and other agencies are clearly significant, especially in lower-income neighborhoods, where they seem to spend most of their time. For some recruits, moral clarity and altruistic motivation to serve often fade over time, which may lead to feelings of betrayal toward those they were meant to protect and serve. Some people are not fully suited for the job, yet they are hired. How can officers uphold their oath while staying within legal limits?
Therefore, calls to defund or reform the police can be valid in certain situations. Mistakes happen, and sometimes they are provoked. On a positive note, body cameras worn by law enforcement have allowed the public to see how difficult their work is. Nationwide, it’s important to recognize that the officer selection process is imperfect—some should not have been chosen at all, which increases the risk of poor performance. Though flawed, the system is necessary. Recently, the movement to defund law enforcement agencies has gained momentum, with advocates arguing that the current policing model is flawed and needs fundamental reform. The slogan “defund the police” has become a key demand for groups like Black Lives Matter, among others, which seek to address the excessive use of force and misconduct by law enforcement.
The movement to defund the police is based on the belief that the current policing system is ineffective at addressing the root causes of crime and public safety issues. It also argues that the significant resources given to police departments could be better spent on community-based initiatives that tackle social and economic issues, with the goal of correcting the root causes of crime and thus preventing it. Advocates of police reform believe defunding the police, for many of its advocates, means ending policing as it is currently practiced. Could this possibly work?
As early as ancient Greece, Aristotle addressed this question, proposing that humans are free to choose their actions within the confines of their nature. Was this a concept focused solely on individuals, or did he also factor in how the overarching societal norms reflect this? Layered on top of this, one must factor in the environment in which one was raised and the community/society norms surrounding the individual.
The Freedom or Right to Own and Bear Arms
The debate over the right to own and carry firearms has long been a divisive and heated issue in many societies, with supporters and opponents passionately expressing their views. At the core of this debate is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment has been widely analyzed and interpreted, with its vague wording leading to different opinions about the scope and meaning of the rights it grants. Some scholars argue that the Second Amendment was designed to protect a person’s right to own and carry firearms for self-defense and to participate in a well-regulated militia.
This perspective aligns with the historical framework of the amendment’s adoption, which emphasized the need for a strong, armed citizenry to defend against potential internal tyranny and to unify the then young nation. The War of 1812 against England is a key example of when militias played a crucial role. The early stages of the Civil War are also germane when initially both armies were mostly composed of militias. Conversely, others believe that the main purpose of the amendment was to enable states to maintain their own militias.
Anything Goes
But in reality, are any of these single-item discussions truly absolute? In fact, you can’t just do ‘ANYTHING’ you want now, and you never really could. Liberty and citizenship sometimes conflict with each other. Examples of this are the Sovereign Citizen or American State National Movements. These movements are contentious and controversial ideologies that have gained significant attention in recent years, offering a unique and often misunderstood perspective on the relationship between the individual and the state. They are based on the belief that individuals have inherent, inalienable rights that take precedence over governmental authority.
In other words, they believe they can do whatever they choose; often arguing that the traditional understanding of state sovereignty is flawed, claiming individuals should not be subject to the jurisdiction and control of the state. This idea of individual sovereignty contests the view of the state as the sole authority and legitimacy. These movements assert that individuals have the right to opt out of the legal and political systems, stating they are not bound by the same laws and regulations as the general population. These philosophies cherry-pick on various legal and political theories, including a rejection of the modern nation-state, a belief in the overriding importance of individual liberty, repeatedly citing historical documents and legal interpretations to support their claims of exemption from state authority that don’t have anything to do with their theories. Absolute nonsense, in my opinion.
Notice the words above about government and the rule of law. Simply put, ‘anything’ cannot be tolerated in a society that relies on its various levels of government to maintain peace through the rule of law. Why is that? Because we live in a society committed to living and acting according to our constitution and laws or regulations, which we have enacted since the founding of our country over two centuries ago. In reality, the constitution itself and the laws enacted since then have changed how we live every single day—almost without us noticing their effects. Taxes at every level, government mandates, presidential, state, and local decrees, permits, licenses, hours of operation restrictions, education, travel restrictions—the list is endless—and yet most of us rarely think about how all of this impacts us.
It’s true that we have certain rights and protections, but they mainly only apply to individuals when they act within the boundaries set by our system—meaning a controlled society or environment—so you are effectively free as long as you follow the laws and regulations. When do these laws become too restrictive? We are essentially controlled by our system without complaint, and yet we call this freedom. Really? Do you realize that our Bill of Rights sets the rules and defines our freedoms, yet we have allowed subsequent government agencies to regulate us further, micromanaging nearly every aspect of our lives?
Essentially, we’re not free in the sense of doing anything we want but live in a highly regulated social order, covered by laws and regulations we’ve willingly imposed on ourselves. We call this in America, freedom.
